[Bug 2216600] Review Request: kaidan - A XMPP client based on KDE Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216600



--- Comment #15 from Felix Wang  ---
Thanks for the checking.

> I think the License should include an “AND LGPL-2.0-or-later” term for 
> src/qml/elements/IconTopButton.qml.

Could you explain why? I see the file src/qml/elements/IconTopButton.qml is
licensed under GPL-3.0-or-later.

https://invent.kde.org/network/kaidan/-/blob/master/src/qml/elements/IconTopButton.qml

> The files src/hsluv-c/hsluv.h and src/hsluv-c/hsluv.c are a bundled copy of 
> http://github.com/hsluv/hsluv-c. This is designed as a ”copylib” and doesn’t 
> have an upstream build system for a separate library, so it’s unlikely it can 
> be separately packaged for Fedora. However, it still needs to be handled in 
> accordance with 
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling. At 
> minimum, the appropriate virtual Provides should be added.

I will add the hsluv-c as the bundled library. Also, I noticed that the source
code files at src/singleapp directory are the bundled library of
SingleApplication, https://github.com/itay-grudev/SingleApplication. I will add
this too.


-- 
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=2216600

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202216600%23c15
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2219206] Review Request: tlmi-auth - Certificate based authentication utility (Lenovo)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2219206



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-59cd1cada6 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh
--advisory=FEDORA-2023-59cd1cada6 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-59cd1cada6

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are 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=2219206

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202219206%23c13
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2222041] Review Request: mlnx-tools - Mellanox userland tools and scripts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=041



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-95efafb543 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 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=041

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%20041%23c12
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2222023] Review Request: apache-commons-vfs - Commons Virtual File System

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=023

Didik Supriadi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 from Didik Supriadi  ---
> Package Review
> ==
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> 
> 
> Issues:
> ===
> - This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java
>   to get additional checks
> - Package does not use a name that already exists.
>   Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
>   https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/apache-commons-vfs
>   See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
>   guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

this review is unretirement.

> - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
>   Note: Jar files in source (see attachment)
>   See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
>   guidelines/Java/#_pre_built_dependencies

there are bundled jar, but they're not packaged.

> 
> 
> = 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: "*No copyright* Apache-2.0", "Unknown or generated". 116 files
>  have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
>  /home/fedora/didiksupriadi41/023-apache-commons-
>  vfs/licensecheck.txt
> [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>  Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/ant.d

I'm not sure about this one. /etc/ant.d is currently owned by ant.

> [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> [x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
> [!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
>  Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/ant.d/commons-vfs

Do you think it would be appropriate to use '%config(noreplace)' in this
context? 
(I'm not entirely sure in my own judgment)

> [!]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
>  Note: Macros in: apache-commons-vfs (description)

the warning is shown below.
moving %javadoc_package macro to a position immediately preceding %prep should
fix it.

> [-]: 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.
> [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 71680 bytes in 2 files.
> [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
> [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
>  one supported primary architecture.
> [x]: Package installs properly.
> [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
>  Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
> [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
>  license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
>  license(s) for the package is included in %license.
> [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> [x]: Package 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]: 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 

[Bug 2076111] Review Request: normalize - Tool for adjusting the volume of audio files to a standard level

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2076111



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-9157ee0e70 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2076111

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202076111%23c21
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2218703] Review Request: python-perky - A simple, Pythonic file format

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2218703



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-df3cf58e51 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 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=2218703

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202218703%23c18
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2222041] Review Request: mlnx-tools - Mellanox userland tools and scripts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=041



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-f7fdcf9461 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=041

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%20041%23c11
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2076111] Review Request: normalize - Tool for adjusting the volume of audio files to a standard level

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2076111

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2023-07-12 01:19:46



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-c06b29a05f has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2076111

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202076111%23c20
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2218703] Review Request: python-perky - A simple, Pythonic file format

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2218703



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-fb1d99bd13 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 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=2218703

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202218703%23c17
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2222130] New: Review Request: ansible-collection-community-postgresql - Manage PostgreSQL with Ansible

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=130

Bug ID: 130
   Summary: Review Request:
ansible-collection-community-postgresql - Manage
PostgreSQL with Ansible
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: maxw...@gtmx.me
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ansible-collection-community-postgresql/ansible-collection-community-postgresql.spec
SRPM URL:
https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ansible-collection-community-postgresql/ansible-collection-community-postgresql-3.0.0-1.fc38.src.rpm

Description:
Manage PostgreSQL with Ansible.


Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=103243147


-- 
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=130

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%20130%23c0
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2222129] New: Review Request: ansible-collection-mdellweg-filters - An Ansible collection of random filters I missed at some point

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=129

Bug ID: 129
   Summary: Review Request: ansible-collection-mdellweg-filters -
An Ansible collection of random filters I missed at
some point
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: maxw...@gtmx.me
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ansible-collection-mdellweg-filters/ansible-collection-mdellweg-filters.spec
SRPM URL:
https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ansible-collection-mdellweg-filters/ansible-collection-mdellweg-filters-0.0.3-1.fc38.src.rpm

Description:
An Ansible collection of random filters I missed at some point.


Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=103242771


-- 
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=129

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%20129%23c0
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2222120] Review Request: ansible-collection-community-crypto - The community.crypto collection for Ansible

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=120



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Review Service  
---
Created attachment 1975228
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1975228=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6162584 to 6162618


-- 
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=120

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%20120%23c2
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2222120] Review Request: ansible-collection-community-crypto - The community.crypto collection for Ansible

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=120



--- Comment #1 from Maxwell G  ---
Spec URL:
https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ansible-collection-community-crypto/ansible-collection-community-crypto.spec
SRPM URL:
https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ansible-collection-community-crypto/ansible-collection-community-crypto-2.14.1-1.fc38.src.rpm

Fix License:


-- 
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=120

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%20120%23c1
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2222120] New: Review Request: ansible-collection-community-crypto - The community.crypto collection for Ansible

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=120

Bug ID: 120
   Summary: Review Request: ansible-collection-community-crypto -
The community.crypto collection for Ansible
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: maxw...@gtmx.me
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ansible-collection-community-crypto/ansible-collection-community-crypto.spec
SRPM URL:
https://gotmax23.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ansible-collection-community-crypto/ansible-collection-community-crypto-2.14.1-1.fc38.src.rpm

Description:
The community.crypto collection for Ansible.


Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=103241790


-- 
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=120

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%20120%23c0
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2214337] Review Request: rust-arboard - Image and text handling for the OS clipboard

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214337

Michel Alexandre Salim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim  ---
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 (MIT OR Apache-2.0) and is acceptable
for Fedora
- license file is included with %license in %files
- package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines

Package APPROVED.

===

Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks:

- add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer

- set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional)

- set up package on release-monitoring.org:
  project: $crate
  homepage: https://crates.io/crates/$crate
  backend: crates.io
  version scheme: semantic
  version filter: alpha;beta;rc;pre
  distro: Fedora
  Package: rust-$crate

- track package in koschei for all built branches


-- 
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=2214337

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202214337%23c2
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2214337] Review Request: rust-arboard - Image and text handling for the OS clipboard

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214337

Michel Alexandre Salim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mic...@michel-slm.name
  Flags||fedora-review?
 CC||mic...@michel-slm.name




-- 
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=2214337
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2145116] Review Request: rust-serde-sarif - Serde serialization for SARIF files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2145116

Michel Alexandre Salim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(jama...@redhat.co
   ||m)
 CC||mic...@michel-slm.name



--- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim  ---
Still 404 by the way


-- 
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=2145116

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202145116%23c3
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2216299] Review Request: rust-gix-actor - Way to identify git actors

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216299



--- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Whoops, sorry, I must have missed the last update.
Please remove the "document-features" dependency and subpackage, it's not
installable.

There's also apparently a conflict with gix-features:

Error: 
 Problem 1: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides (crate(document-features/default) >= 0.2.0 with
crate(document-features/default) < 0.3.0~) needed by
rust-gix-actor+document-features-devel-0.23.0-1.fc39.noarch
 Problem 2: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides (crate(gix-features/default) >= 0.31.0 with
crate(gix-features/default) < 0.32.0~) needed by
rust-gix-actor+gix-features-devel-0.23.0-1.fc39.noarch


-- 
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=2216299

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202216299%23c5
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2217167] Review Request: rust-whoami - Retrieve the current user and environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217167

Fabio Valentini  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
 Status|POST|CLOSED
Last Closed||2023-07-11 20:01:32



--- Comment #12 from Fabio Valentini  ---
This was imported and built.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217167

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217167%23c12
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2217030] Review Request: rust-sval_test - Utilities for testing sval::Value implementations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217030
Bug 2217030 depends on bug 2217026, which changed state.

Bug 2217026 Summary: Review Request: rust-sval_dynamic - Object-safe versions 
of sval::Stream and sval::Value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217026

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE




-- 
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=2217030
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2217026] Review Request: rust-sval_dynamic - Object-safe versions of sval::Stream and sval::Value

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217026

Fabio Valentini  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
 Status|POST|CLOSED
Last Closed||2023-07-11 19:45:10



--- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Built in f39-build-side-69808:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2230477


-- 
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=2217026

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217026%23c5
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2217056] Review Request: rust-value-bag-sval2 - Implementation detail for value-bag

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217056
Bug 2217056 depends on bug 2217026, which changed state.

Bug 2217026 Summary: Review Request: rust-sval_dynamic - Object-safe versions 
of sval::Stream and sval::Value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217026

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE




-- 
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=2217056
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2221221] Review Request: rust-regex-lite - Lightweight regex engine that optimizes for binary size and compilation time

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221221



--- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini  ---
All dependencies are now available in rawhide (in the f39-build-side-69806 side
tag).


-- 
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=2221221

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202221221%23c2
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2221221] Review Request: rust-regex-lite - Lightweight regex engine that optimizes for binary size and compilation time

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221221
Bug 2221221 depends on bug 2221224, which changed state.

Bug 2221224 Summary: Review Request: rust-regex-test - Infrastructure for 
testing regexes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221224

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE




-- 
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=2221221
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2221224] Review Request: rust-regex-test - Infrastructure for testing regexes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221224

Fabio Valentini  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2023-07-11 19:07:47



--- Comment #6 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Imported and built:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2230457


-- 
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=2221224

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202221224%23c6
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2217026] Review Request: rust-sval_dynamic - Object-safe versions of sval::Stream and sval::Value

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217026



--- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Thanks for the review! Will update before importing + building.


-- 
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=2217026

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217026%23c4
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2217026] Review Request: rust-sval_dynamic - Object-safe versions of sval::Stream and sval::Value

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217026



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 
 ---
The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-sval_dynamic


-- 
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=2217026

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217026%23c3
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2221358] Review Request: rust-rpds - Persistent data structures with structural sharing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221358

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2023-07-11 18:48:57



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-e4afea439c 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=2221358

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202221358%23c10
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2221358] Review Request: rust-rpds - Persistent data structures with structural sharing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221358

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-e4afea439c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-e4afea439c


-- 
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=2221358

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202221358%23c9
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2221224] Review Request: rust-regex-test - Infrastructure for testing regexes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221224



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


-- 
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=2221224

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202221224%23c5
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2221224] Review Request: rust-regex-test - Infrastructure for testing regexes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221224



--- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Thanks a lot for the review! If you could take a look at regex-lite (#2221221)
as well, that would unblock a couple updates for me.


-- 
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=2221224

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202221224%23c4
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2221358] Review Request: rust-rpds - Persistent data structures with structural sharing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221358



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 
 ---
The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-rpds


-- 
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=2221358

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202221358%23c8
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2221358] Review Request: rust-rpds - Persistent data structures with structural sharing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221358



--- Comment #7 from Mattia Verga  ---
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #6)
> If you need help with packaging "Rusty" Python packages, feel free to reach
> out.
> Both python-orjson and python-y-py are good examples for such packages, if
> you want to take a stab at it yourself.

Yes thanks, I already used them to write down a specfile for rpds-py and it was
my intention to ask in some ML to add those examples to Packaging Guidelines
for easier reference.


-- 
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=2221358

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202221358%23c7
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2217023] Review Request: rust-serde_buf - Generic buffering for serde

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217023

Michel Alexandre Salim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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




-- 
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=2217023
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2217026] Review Request: rust-sval_dynamic - Object-safe versions of sval::Stream and sval::Value

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217026

Michel Alexandre Salim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim  ---
Package was generated with rust2rpm, simplifying the review.

- package builds and installs without errors on rawhide ==> in COPR
- test suite is run and all unit tests pass
! latest version of the crate is packaged ==> update to 2.6.1 when importing
- license matches upstream specification (Apache-2.0 OR MIT) and is acceptable
for Fedora
- license file is included with %license in %files
- package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines

Package APPROVED.

===

Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks:

- add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer

- set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional)

- set up package on release-monitoring.org:
  project: $crate
  homepage: https://crates.io/crates/$crate
  backend: crates.io
  version scheme: semantic
  version filter: alpha;beta;rc;pre
  distro: Fedora
  Package: rust-$crate

- track package in koschei for all built branches


-- 
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=2217026

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217026%23c2
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2221592] Review Request: python-aiohttp-retry - Simple retry client for aiohttp

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221592

Roman Inflianskas  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(rom...@aiven.io)  |needinfo?(paul.wouters@aive
   ||n.io)



--- Comment #3 from Roman Inflianskas  ---
Thanks for your review and finding my mistakes!

I have addressed your comments and updated both files.


-- 
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=2221592

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202221592%23c3
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2222041] Review Request: mlnx-tools - Mellanox userland tools and scripts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=041



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2023-95efafb543 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-95efafb543


-- 
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=041

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%20041%23c10
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2217026] Review Request: rust-sval_dynamic - Object-safe versions of sval::Stream and sval::Value

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217026

Michel Alexandre Salim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mic...@michel-slm.name
  Flags||fedora-review?
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mic...@michel-slm.name
 Status|NEW |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=2217026
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2222041] Review Request: mlnx-tools - Mellanox userland tools and scripts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=041



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-f7fdcf9461 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-f7fdcf9461


-- 
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=041

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%20041%23c9
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2217027] Review Request: python-pdm-backend

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217027

Michel Alexandre Salim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
 CC||mic...@michel-slm.name
Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
   |python3-pdm-backend |python-pdm-backend



--- Comment #1 from Michel Alexandre Salim  ---
editing the bug title to match the actual spec name (otherwise I think it will
cause issues when requesting the repo)


-- 
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=2217027

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217027%23c1
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2221224] Review Request: rust-regex-test - Infrastructure for testing regexes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221224

Michel Alexandre Salim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim  ---
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 (MIT OR Apache-2.0) and is acceptable
for Fedora
- license file is included with %license in %files
- package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines

Package APPROVED.

===

Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks:

- add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer

- set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional)

- set up package on release-monitoring.org:
  project: $crate
  homepage: https://crates.io/crates/$crate
  backend: crates.io
  version scheme: semantic
  version filter: alpha;beta;rc;pre
  distro: Fedora
  Package: rust-$crate

- track package in koschei for all built branches


-- 
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=2221224

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202221224%23c3
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2221224] Review Request: rust-regex-test - Infrastructure for testing regexes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221224

Michel Alexandre Salim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mic...@michel-slm.name
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mic...@michel-slm.name
 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
  Flags||fedora-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=2221224
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2222041] Review Request: mlnx-tools - Mellanox userland tools and scripts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=041

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
Last Closed||2023-07-11 17:36:55



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-282fa2440b 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 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=041

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%20041%23c8
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2222041] Review Request: mlnx-tools - Mellanox userland tools and scripts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=041

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-282fa2440b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-282fa2440b


-- 
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=041

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%20041%23c7
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2222041] Review Request: mlnx-tools - Mellanox userland tools and scripts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=041



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 
 ---
The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mlnx-tools


-- 
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=041

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%20041%23c6
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2222041] Review Request: mlnx-tools - Mellanox userland tools and scripts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=041

Michel Alexandre Salim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim  ---
LGTM, 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=041

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%20041%23c5
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2222041] Review Request: mlnx-tools - Mellanox userland tools and scripts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=041

Davide Cavalca  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(dav...@cavalca.na |
   |me) |



--- Comment #4 from Davide Cavalca  ---
Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/mlnx-tools/mlnx-tools.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/mlnx-tools/mlnx-tools-23.07-1.fc39.src.rpm

Changelog:
- add Requires for systemd-udevd


-- 
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=041

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%20041%23c4
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2222041] Review Request: mlnx-tools - Mellanox userland tools and scripts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=041

Michel Alexandre Salim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
  Flags||needinfo?(dav...@cavalca.na
   ||me)



--- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim  ---
need a couple of changes
- Require systemd-udev for /lib/udev ownership
  optionally if udev is not required for basic functionality, recommend it but
then declare %dir /lib/udev
- Can this be made noarch? It's mostly shell scripts

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: "BSD 2-Clause License", "Common Public License 1.0", "GNU
 General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "GNU
 General Public License, Version 2 Common Public License 1.0", "GNU
 General Public License v2.0 or later", "MIT License". 18 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/davide/041-mlnx-
 tools/licensecheck.txt
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /lib/udev
 => need to Requires: systemd-udev
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /lib/udev
[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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[-]: Sources are 

[Bug 2221592] Review Request: python-aiohttp-retry - Simple retry client for aiohttp

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221592

Paul Wouters  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(paul.wouters@aive |needinfo?(rom...@aiven.io)
   |n.io)   |



--- Comment #2 from Paul Wouters  ---
Package Review 
==

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


python-aiohttp-retry.spec:15: E: buildarch-instead-of-exclusivearch-tag noarch
/ BuildRequires:  gcc

Not sure why the "/ BuildRequires:  gcc" is there? Perhaps a bad copy and paste
from a documentation page?

Handling tox-current-env >= 0.0.6 from tox itself
Requirement not satisfied: tox-current-env >= 0.0.6
Exiting dependency generation pass: tox itself

I needed to manually install python3-tox-current-env

The spec file in the srpm should be updated to the one on the rhbz:
-%autochangelog
+* Mon Jul 10 2023 John Doe  - 2.8.3-1
+- Uncommitted changes

python-aiohttp-retry.src: W: strange-permission python-aiohttp-retry.spec 600

Make the spec 0644 :)

With the above issues addressed, the package is approved.


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
 License". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/paul.wouters/2221592-python-aiohttp-
 retry/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
add python3-tox-current-env  ?
[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 20480 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

Python:
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
 packages named with the unversioned 

[Bug 2222052] Review Request: golang-howett-plist - A pure Go Apple Property List transcoder

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=052

Pavel Solovev  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
 Blocks||2221705





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221705
[Bug 2221705] kitty-0.29.0 is available
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=052
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2222052] New: Review Request: golang-howett-plist - A pure Go Apple Property List transcoder

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=052

Bug ID: 052
   Summary: Review Request: golang-howett-plist - A pure Go Apple
Property List transcoder
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: daron...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://solopasha.fedorapeople.org/for-review/golang-howett-plist.spec
SRPM URL:
https://solopasha.fedorapeople.org/for-review/golang-howett-plist-1.0.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
Description: A pure Go Apple Property List transcoder
Fedora Account System Username: solopasha


-- 
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=052

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%20052%23c0
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2222041] Review Request: mlnx-tools - Mellanox userland tools and scripts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=041

Fedora Review Service  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

URL||https://github.com/Mellanox
   ||/mlnx-tools



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Review Service  
---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6161941
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-041-mlnx-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06161941-mlnx-tools/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=041

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%20041%23c2
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2222041] Review Request: mlnx-tools - Mellanox userland tools and scripts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=041

Michel Alexandre Salim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?
 CC||mic...@michel-slm.name
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mic...@michel-slm.name




-- 
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=041
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2222041] Review Request: mlnx-tools - Mellanox userland tools and scripts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=041



--- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=103228624


-- 
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=041

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%20041%23c1
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2222041] New: Review Request: mlnx-tools - Mellanox userland tools and scripts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=041

Bug ID: 041
   Summary: Review Request: mlnx-tools - Mellanox userland tools
and scripts
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: dav...@cavalca.name
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/mlnx-tools/mlnx-tools.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/mlnx-tools/mlnx-tools-23.07-1.fc39.src.rpm

Description:
This package provides various Mellanox userland tools and scripts.

Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=041

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%20041%23c0
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2221358] Review Request: rust-rpds - Persistent data structures with structural sharing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221358



--- Comment #6 from Fabio Valentini  ---
If you need help with packaging "Rusty" Python packages, feel free to reach
out.
Both python-orjson and python-y-py are good examples for such packages, if you
want to take a stab at it yourself.


-- 
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=2221358

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202221358%23c6
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2221358] Review Request: rust-rpds - Persistent data structures with structural sharing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221358

Fabio Valentini  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini  ---
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 (MPL-2.0) and is acceptable for Fedora
- license file is included with %license in %files
- package complies with Rust Packaging Guidelines

Package APPROVED.

===

Recommended post-import rust-sig tasks:

- set up package on release-monitoring.org:
  project: $crate
  homepage: https://crates.io/crates/$crate
  backend: crates.io
  version scheme: semantic
  version filter: alpha;beta;rc;pre
  distro: Fedora
  Package: rust-$crate

- add @rust-sig with "commit" access as package co-maintainer
  (should happen automatically)

- set bugzilla assignee overrides to @rust-sig (optional)

- track package in koschei for all built branches
  (should happen automatically once rust-sig is co-maintainer)


-- 
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=2221358

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202221358%23c5
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2216600] Review Request: kaidan - A XMPP client based on KDE Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2216600

Ben Beasley  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||c...@musicinmybrain.net



--- Comment #14 from Ben Beasley  ---
Steve Cossette asked me to double-check the review.



The suggestions offered in the review process looked reasonable.



Regarding remaining rpmlint messages:

> kaidan.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kaidan

Man pages are desired in general
(https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages) but this
is a SHOULD rather than a MUST. It’s worth pointing this out in a review, but
it shouldn’t be considered a blocker.

It’s often difficult to convince upstreams of the value of maintaining man
pages. I find that most upstreams won’t consider it unless the man pages can be
automatically generated from some existing source.

> kaidan.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/kaidan/images/kaidan.svg 
> /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/kaidan.svg

This is fine. These files could probably safely be hardlinked without the risk
of cross-filesystem hardlinks, since both are under /usr/share/ (but rpmlint
would then complain about cross-directory hardlinks possibly being on different
filesystems), or they could be explicitly symlinked, but duplicating a single 4
kiB file is just not a big deal. I would probably not recommend any change to
the packaging.



The fedora-review tool suggests that large data in /usr/share should live in a
noarch subpackage if package is arched. This allows the noarch subpackage to be
shared across architectures, and reduces duplicated data on the mirrors.
Whether ~1MiB is large enough to worry about is a matter of opinion. It would
be reasonable to consider moving the data into a noarch -data subpackage, but I
don’t think the data files are large enough to say this *needs* to happen.



I think the License should include an “AND LGPL-2.0-or-later” term for
src/qml/elements/IconTopButton.qml.



The files src/hsluv-c/hsluv.h and src/hsluv-c/hsluv.c are a bundled copy of
http://github.com/hsluv/hsluv-c. This is designed as a ”copylib” and doesn’t
have an upstream build system for a separate library, so it’s unlikely it can
be separately packaged for Fedora. However, it still needs to be handled in
accordance with
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling. At
minimum, the appropriate virtual Provides should be added.



The sole source (Source0:) doesn’t need to be numbered; you can just write
”Source:”. Numbering it doesn’t hurt anything, though.



As a reviewer, it’s a good practice to post the filled-in review checklist
template from the fedora-review output. This shows you’ve considered all of the
things that it can’t check automatically, and is generally useful when people
need to go back and check old reviews.



Overall, this looks like a clean package and a high-quality 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=2216600

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202216600%23c14
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2222023] Review Request: apache-commons-vfs - Commons Virtual File System

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=023

Fedora Review Service  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

URL||https://commons.apache.org/
   ||proper/commons-vfs/



--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service  
---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6161695
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-023-apache-commons-vfs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06161695-apache-commons-vfs/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=023

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%20023%23c1
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2222023] New: Review Request: apache-commons-vfs - Commons Virtual File System

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=023

Bug ID: 023
   Summary: Review Request: apache-commons-vfs - Commons Virtual
File System
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-vfs/apache-commons-vfs.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-vfs/apache-commons-vfs-2.9.0-1.fc39.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: jjames
Description: This package was previously in Fedora, but was retired after being
orphaned.  More than 6 weeks have elapsed, so a new review is required.

Commons VFS provides a single API for accessing various file systems.  It
presents a uniform view of the files from various sources, such as the files on
local disk, on an HTTP server, or inside a Zip archive.

Some of the features of Commons VFS are:
* A single consistent API for accessing files of different types.
* Support for numerous file system types.
* Caching of file information.  Caches information in-JVM, and optionally can
cache remote file information on the local file system (replicator).
* Event delivery.
* Support for logical file systems made up of files from various file systems.
* Utilities for integrating Commons VFS into applications, such as a VFS-aware
ClassLoader and URLStreamHandlerFactory.
* A set of VFS-enabled Ant tasks.


-- 
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=023

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%20023%23c0
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Fedora Review Service  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

URL||https://github.com/jcbf/smf
   ||-spf/



--- Comment #44 from Fedora Review Service 
 ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6161483
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-1877006-smf-spf/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06161483-smf-spf/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
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=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c44
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #43 from Fedora Review Service 
 ---
Created attachment 1975172
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1975172=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 6149097 to 6161483


-- 
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=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c43
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #42 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #37)
> FIX: Missing an Url tag in the spec file pointing to an upstream. Did you
> mean ?

Yes, done.


> FIX: Source0 looks like a VCS snapshot. Put a URL you cloned it from into a
> comment above Source0 tag
>  #_using_revision_control>. Or use a URL of the snapshot if the upstream VCS
> hosting system supports it.

OK, done.


> FIX: Version does not follow a schema for snapshots
>  #_snapshots>. Consider what would happen if you need to upgrade to a
> "051e937" snapshot of a 2.5.1-post release. In your current schema the new
> version would sort lower than the old version.

OK, done.


> TODO: It looks like the tests come from The Trusted Domain Project which
> uses .
> That license requires carrying the license text. However, I cannot see the
> license text anywhere in the source archive. You should clarify with the
> upstream an origin of the tests. If upstream confirms it, the upstream and
> you need to supply the missing license text.

I'll talk with upstream author to clarify this license mess.


> FIX: Remove "rm -rf spf2" command from %prep. There is no such directory in
> the archive.

OK, done.


> TODO: Use "install -m0644" instead of "cp -a" for copying the additional
> sources. A mode of the files is undefined. It depends on umask of the host
> which builds the package.

OK, done


> FIX: Remove a duplicate "BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros".
> FIX: Remove "Requires(pre):  shadow-utils". A correct dependency is handled
> with "%{?sysusers_requires_compat}" macro.
> FIX: Build-requires "coreutils" (smf-spf.spec:52).
> FIX: Build-require "make" (smf-spf.spec:49).

OK, done.


> FIX: The README.rpm is out-dated. "service", "chkconfig" commands are now
> replaced with systemctl. Recommendation to install dependencies like libspf2
> and sendmail is pointless. These are handled with RPM run-time dependencies
> of this package. If sendmail-cf is required, then smf-spf or sendmail should
> run-require it.

OK, done.


> FIX: The lua script still fails:
> error: lua script failed: [string "add_sysuser"]:16: invalid sysuser type:
> #Type
>   3<(%lua)
>   2<  (%add_sysuser)
> Have you tried removing a first line with the comment from the file? At this
> step the file is interpreted by Lua script of rpmbuild to generated RPM
> Provides and it's possible that the script does not support comments.

OK, done.


> FIX: smf-spf.sysusers declares /var/lib/smfs as a home directory, but that
> directory is not packaged. I think you should use "-" or "/run/smfs"
> instead. See sysusers.d(5) manual page.

OK, done.


> FIX: /run/smfs directory disappears on reboot because /run is tmpfs. Use
>  for
> creating one with correct ownership and mode.

OK, done.


> TODO: Does this mail filter work only with sendmail? If it also works with
> postfix, the package should depend on "(sendmail or postfix)".

OK, done.


- Please, find the latest .spec and SRPM versions here
Spec URL: https://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ftp.fibranet.cat/smf-spf/smf-spf-2.5.1^20220423g061e937-1.fc38.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=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c42
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #41 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #40)
> %autosetup has -n option to specify the top-level directory in the archive.
> See
>  #_commit_revision>.

Ah!, I was searching in this document but I was unable to find it.
Thank you very much.


-- 
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=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c41
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2211754] Review Request: pkcs11-provider - A PKCS#11 provider for OpenSSL 3.0+

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2211754

Jakub Jelen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelen  ---
Thank you. The current version looks good. Attaching checklist from Fedora
review.

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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: "Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "FSF Unlimited
 License (with License Retention) FSF All Permissive License [generated
 file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]",
 "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License
 [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public
 License v2.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited License (with License
 Retention) GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited
 License (with License Retention)". 23 files have unknown license.
[X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[X]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD 

[Bug 2221992] Review Request: oidc-agent - Managing OpenID Connect tokens on the command line

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221992

Fedora Review Service  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

URL||https://github.com/indigo-d
   ||c/%{name}



--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service  
---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6161108
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2221992-oidc-agent/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06161108-oidc-agent/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=2221992

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202221992%23c1
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2221992] New: Review Request: oidc-agent - Managing OpenID Connect tokens on the command line

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221992

Bug ID: 2221992
   Summary: Review Request: oidc-agent - Managing OpenID Connect
tokens on the command line
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: mattias.ell...@physics.uu.se
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://www.ellert.se/review/oidc-agent.spec
SRPM URL: https://www.ellert.se/review/oidc-agent-4.5.2-1.fc39.src.rpm
Description: 

oidc-agent is a set of tools to manage OpenID Connect tokens and make
them easily usable from the command line. We followed the ssh-agent
design, so users can handle OIDC tokens in a similar way as they do
with ssh keys.

oidc-agent is usually started in the beginning of an X-session or a
login session. Through use of environment variables the agent can be
located and used to handle OIDC tokens.

The agent initially does not have any account configurations
loaded. You can load an account configuration by using
oidc-add. Multiple account configurations may be loaded in oidc-agent
concurrently. oidc-add is also used to remove a loaded configuration
from oidc-agent. oidc-gen is used to initially generate an account
configurations file.

Fedora Account System Username: ellert


-- 
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=2221992

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202221992%23c0
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2179213] Review Request: pamixer - Pulseaudio command line mixer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179213



--- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar  ---
Url and Source0 addresses are Ok.
Source0 (SHA-512:
c01b7c4184901955bff82aaeef0cde7f0b613e6ebff1158b3603f2835e13590a9353920a430598a3cde5c305a7316a78e302186bf4d3bf458133262578b42eb3)
is original. Ok.
Summary verified from README.rst. Ok.
Description verified from README.rst. Ok.
TODO: Spell "pulseaudio" as "PulseAudio". That's what the sound server is
called like.
License verified from src/pulseaudio.hh, src/pulseaudio.cc, src/pamixer.cc,
src/device.hh, src/device.cc, COPYING. Ok.

FIX: Build-require 'cxxopts-static' instead of (or in addition to)
'pkgconfig(cxxopts)'. cxxopts is a header-only library
.

No tests, no %check phase. Ok.

$ rpmlint pamixer.spec ../SRPMS/pamixer-1.6-1.fc39.src.rpm
../RPMS/x86_64/pamixer-*
 rpmlint session starts
===
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.12/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: 5

= 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness;
has taken 0.3 s 
rpmlint output is Ok.

$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/pamixer-1.6-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm 
-rwxr-xr-x1 root root   276048 Jul 11 02:00
/usr/bin/pamixer
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Jul 11 02:00
/usr/lib/.build-id
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Jul 11 02:00
/usr/lib/.build-id/da
lrwxrwxrwx1 root root   27 Jul 11 02:00
/usr/lib/.build-id/da/b15c9aeff9718ba00bce19fde43a7b98a7 ->
../../../../usr/bin/pamixer
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Jul 11 02:00
/usr/share/doc/pamixer
-rw-r--r--1 root root 2469 Jun 10  2022
/usr/share/doc/pamixer/README.rst
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Jul 11 02:00
/usr/share/licenses/pamixer
-rw-r--r--1 root root35147 Jun 10  2022
/usr/share/licenses/pamixer/COPYING
-rw-r--r--1 root root  668 Jun 10  2022
/usr/share/man/man1/pamixer.1.gz
File layout and permissions are Ok.

$ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/pamixer-1.6-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f |
uniq -c
  1 libc.so.6()(64bit)
  1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit)
  1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
  1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.32)(64bit)
  1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.34)(64bit)
  1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
  1 libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
  1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
  1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
  1 libm.so.6()(64bit)
  1 libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
  1 libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.29)(64bit)
  1 libpulse.so.0()(64bit)
  1 libpulse.so.0(PULSE_0)(64bit)
  1 libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
  1 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
  1 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit)
  1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
  1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit)
  1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.14)(64bit)
  1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.15)(64bit)
  1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.18)(64bit)
  1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.21)(64bit)
  1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.29)(64bit)
  1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.30)(64bit)
  1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.32)(64bit)
  1 libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit)
  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 rtld(GNU_HASH)
Binary requires are Ok.

$ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/pamixer-1.6-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm | sort -f |
uniq -c
  1 pamixer = 1.6-1.fc39
  1 pamixer(x86-64) = 1.6-1.fc39
Binary provides are Ok.

$ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/x86_64/pamixer-1.6-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm 
Binary dependencies are resolvable. Ok.

The package builds in Fedora 39
(https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=103219128). Ok.

Otherwise the package is in line with Fedora, Meson, and C++ packaging
guidelines.
Please correct the FIX item and provide an updated spec file.


-- 
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=2179213

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202179213%23c2
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 

[Bug 2179213] Review Request: pamixer - Pulseaudio command line mixer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179213

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@redhat.com
 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
 CC||ppi...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-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=2179213
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2161164] Review Request: python-importlib-resources - Read resources from Python packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2161164

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
   |importlib-resources -   |python-importlib-resources
   |   |Python packages




-- 
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=2161164
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #40 from Petr Pisar  ---
%autosetup has -n option to specify the top-level directory in the archive. See
.


-- 
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=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c40
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2221592] Review Request: python-aiohttp-retry - Simple retry client for aiohttp

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221592

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  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=2221592
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2221418] Review Request: python-tensile - Tool for creating benchmark-driven backend libraries for GEMMs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221418

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  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=2221418
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #39 from Jordi Sanfeliu  ---
> FIX: Source0 looks like a VCS snapshot. Put a URL you cloned it from into a 
> comment above Source0 tag 
> .
>  Or use a URL of the snapshot if the upstream VCS hosting system supports it.

The problem here is that if I include an URL to download the source code
directly from upstream VCS (GitHub in this case), the directory inside the .zip
file is different than what the Version tag says:

Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.IQOr91
+ umask 022
+ cd /root/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ cd /root/rpmbuild/BUILD
+ rm -rf 'smf-spf-2.5.1^20220423g061e937'
+ /usr/lib/rpm/rpmuncompress -x
/root/rpmbuild/SOURCES/061e9371f761f70afd40af349f4037fe0460725c.zip
replace
smf-spf-061e9371f761f70afd40af349f4037fe0460725c/.devcontainer/Dockerfile?
[y]es, [n]o, [A]ll, [N]one, [r]ename: A
+ STATUS=0
+ '[' 0 -ne 0 ']'
+ cd 'smf-spf-2.5.1^20220423g061e937'
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.IQOr91: line 40: cd: smf-spf-2.5.1^20220423g061e937: No such
file or directory

How can I provide an upstream URL and tell to the specfile the exact name of
the directory where the source code is?


-- 
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=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c39
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2119494] Review Request: aubit4gl - Informix-4GL compatible compiler

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119494



--- Comment #110 from Stansoft  ---
Benson, can we get the fedora-review flag set to "+" for approval?


-- 
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=2119494

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202119494%23c110
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2221908] Review Request: libsv - semantic versioning for the C language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221908

Zephyr Lykos  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Comment|0   |updated



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

Source URL: https://pagure.io/mochaa-rpms/libsv
SRPM URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mochaa/libsv
Description: Public domain cross-platform semantic versioning in c99
Fedora Account System Username: mochaa

-- 
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=2221908
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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

Zephyr Lykos  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||2221908





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221908
[Bug 2221908] Review Request: libsv - semantic versioning for the C language
-- 
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 2221908] Review Request: libsv - semantic versioning for the C language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221908

Zephyr Lykos  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
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=2221908
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 2221908] New: Review Request: libsv - semantic versioning for the C language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2221908

Bug ID: 2221908
   Summary: Review Request: libsv - semantic versioning for the C
language
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: fed...@mochaa.ws
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Source URL: https://pagure.io/mochaa-rpms/libsv
Description: Public domain cross-platform semantic versioning in c99
Fedora Account System Username: mochaa


-- 
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=2221908

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202221908%23c0
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #38 from Petr Pisar  ---
(In reply to Jordi Sanfeliu from comment #36)
> > Maybe you should try a scratch build in Fedora Koji "koji build --scratch 
> > f39-candidate smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937-1.fc38.src.rpm". This how Fedora 
> > packages are built without the failing COPR appendage.
> 
> $ fedpkg clone smf-spf
> Cloning into 'smf-spf'...
> No such repository
> fatal: Could not read from remote repository.
[...]
> I'm unable to clone the smf-spf repository to start building packages with
> koji.

You don't need any repository for building with koji. The
"smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937-1.fc38.src.rpm" argument in my example is a local RPM
package file.


-- 
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=1877006

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201877006%23c38
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006



--- Comment #37 from Petr Pisar  ---
FIX: Missing an Url tag in the spec file pointing to an upstream. Did you mean
?
FIX: Source0 looks like a VCS snapshot. Put a URL you cloned it from into a
comment above Source0 tag
.
Or use a URL of the snapshot if the upstream VCS hosting system supports it.
FIX: Version does not follow a schema for snapshots
.
Consider what would happen if you need to upgrade to a "051e937" snapshot of a
2.5.1-post release. In your current schema the new version would sort lower
than the old version.

Summary verified from README.md. Ok.
Description is Ok.

Licenses found:
GPL-2.0 text: COPYING
MIT: .devcontainer/Dockerfile
BSD-3-like: tests/04-fixed-client-auth-fail.lua
GPL-3.0 text: LICENSE
GPL-2.0-or-later: smf-spf.c

License tag is Ok.

TODO: It looks like the tests come from The Trusted Domain Project which uses
. That
license requires carrying the license text. However, I cannot see the license
text anywhere in the source archive. You should clarify with the upstream an
origin of the tests. If upstream confirms it, the upstream and you need to
supply the missing license text.

FIX: Remove "rm -rf spf2" command from %prep. There is no such directory in the
archive.
TODO: Use "install -m0644" instead of "cp -a" for copying the additional
sources. A mode of the files is undefined. It depends on umask of the host
which builds the package.

FIX: Remove a duplicate "BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros".
FIX: Remove "Requires(pre):  shadow-utils". A correct dependency is handled
with "%{?sysusers_requires_compat}" macro.
FIX: Build-requires "coreutils" (smf-spf.spec:52).
FIX: Build-require "make" (smf-spf.spec:49).

FIX: The README.rpm is out-dated. "service", "chkconfig" commands are now
replaced with systemctl. Recommendation to install dependencies like libspf2
and sendmail is pointless. These are handled with RPM run-time dependencies of
this package. If sendmail-cf is required, then smf-spf or sendmail should
run-require it.

FIX: The lua script still fails:
error: lua script failed: [string "add_sysuser"]:16: invalid sysuser type:
#Type
  3<(%lua)
  2<  (%add_sysuser)
Have you tried removing a first line with the comment from the file? At this
step the file is interpreted by Lua script of rpmbuild to generated RPM
Provides and it's possible that the script does not support comments.

$ rpmlint smf-spf.spec ../SRPMS/smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937-1.fc39.src.rpm
../RPMS/x86_64/smf-spf-*
 rpmlint session starts
===
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.12/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: 5

smf-spf.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /run/smfs smfs
smf-spf.x86_64: W: non-standard-gid /run/smfs smfs
smf-spf.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /run/smfs 700
smf-spf.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
smf-spf-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
smf-spf-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
smf-spf.src: W: no-url-tag
smf-spf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smf-spf
smf-spf.spec:26: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 26, tab: line 1)
smf-spf.spec:26: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 26, tab: line 1)
smf-spf.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937.tar.gz
smf-spf.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937.tar.gz
smf-spf.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.5.1-1
['2.5.1.061e937-1.fc39', '2.5.1.061e937-1']
smf-spf.x86_64: E: file-parent-ownership-mismatch Path "/run/smfs/smf-spf.sock"
owned by "root" is stored in directory owned by "smfs"
 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 12 warnings, 2 badness;
has taken 0.3 s 
TODO: Replace tabs with spaced in the spec file to achieve uniformity.
FIX: Correct a version in the changelog entry.

$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/smf-spf-2.5.1.061e937-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm 
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Jul  4 02:00
/etc/mail/smfs
-rw-r--r--1 root root 4731 Jul  4 02:00
/etc/mail/smfs/smf-spf.conf
drwx--2 smfs smfs0 Jul  4 02:00 /run/smfs
-rw-r--r--1 root root0 Jul  4 02:00
/run/smfs/smf-spf.sock
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Jul  4 02:00
/usr/lib/.build-id
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Jul  4 02:00
/usr/lib/.build-id/63
lrwxrwxrwx1 root root  

[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?
 Status|NEW |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=1877006
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://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