[Bug 2246263] Review Request: pagure-exporter - Simple exporter tool that helps migrate repository files, data assets and issue tickets from projects on Pagure to GitLab
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246263 Onuralp Sezer changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Onuralp Sezer --- * Package follows Fedora packaging guidelines * Package builds and installs * Package licensing looks correct * No serious issues in rpmlint Everything looks good PACKAGE APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246263 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246263%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 2246263] Review Request: pagure-exporter - Simple exporter tool that helps migrate repository files, data assets and issue tickets from projects on Pagure to GitLab
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246263 Onuralp Sezer changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|thunderbir...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC||thunderbir...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246263 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2246263] New: Review Request: pagure-exporter - Simple exporter tool that helps migrate repository files, data assets and issue tickets from projects on Pagure to GitLab
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246263 Bug ID: 2246263 Summary: Review Request: pagure-exporter - Simple exporter tool that helps migrate repository files, data assets and issue tickets from projects on Pagure to GitLab Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: akashdeep.d...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://github.com/gridhead/pagure-exporter/raw/main/pagure-exporter.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/gridhead/pagure-exporter/files/13172832/pagure-exporter-0.1.1-1.fc40.zip (Requires extraction to reveal SRPM file) Description: Simple exporter tool that helps migrate repository files, data assets and issue tickets from projects on Pagure to GitLab Fedora Account System Username: t0xic0der ``` The source RPM can be found [here](https://github.com/gridhead/pagure-exporter/files/13172832/pagure-exporter-0.1.1-1.fc40.zip) and the RPM spec file can be found [here](https://github.com/gridhead/pagure-exporter/raw/main/pagure-exporter.spec). Please note that the source RPM file was compressed as a ZIP archive and must be extracted to reveal the file called `pagure-exporter-0.1.1-1.fc40.src.rpm` as GitHub does not allow uploading files of the said type. The project has been distributed on PyPI, by the name [`pagure-exporter`](https://pypi.org/project/pagure-exporter/), and on COPR, by the name [`pagure-exporter`](https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/t0xic0der/pagure-exporter/). ``` -- 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=2246263 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246263%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 2246225] Review Request: lsb_release - Linux Standard Base Release Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246225 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2023-0b1cbed843 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-0b1cbed843 -- 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=2246225 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246225%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 2246225] Review Request: lsb_release - Linux Standard Base Release Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246225 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2023-729ba789a5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-729ba789a5 -- 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=2246225 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246225%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 2246225] Review Request: lsb_release - Linux Standard Base Release Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246225 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lsb_release -- 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=2246225 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246225%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 2215421] Review Request: x2gokdrive - KDrive graphical server backend for X2GoServer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2215421 --- Comment #10 from Orion Poplawski --- (In reply to Jos de Kloe from comment #9) > Issues: > === > - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. > Note: openssl1.1-devel is deprecated, you must not depend on it. > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/deprecating-packages/ I honestly have no idea where this comment is coming from. The package BRs pkgconfig(openssl), which on rawhide brings in: openssl-develx86_64 1:3.1.1-4.fc40fedora 2.6 M Although the binaries don't require either of libcrypto or libssl so I'm not entirely sure it's used, despite being checked for: checking for openssl... yes I see no evidence of openssl1.1-devel being involved. > - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > ==>the copyright file that you included describes GPL-2 and GPL-2+ > but the spec file gives GPL-3.0-or-later > You added a comment to explain, but if this package actually > uses a mixture of GPL-2, GPL-2+, and GPL-3+ > then maybe the license flag should be GPL-2.0-or-later ? According to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/: The spec file License tag consists of an enumeration of all licenses covering any code or other material contained in the corresponding binary RPM. This enumeration must take the form of an SPDX license expression. No further analysis as to the "effective" license should be done. > -rpmspec complains about permissions of the source files. > please fix this. Fixed. -- 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=2215421 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202215421%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 2243351] Review Request: composefs - Tools to handle creating and mounting composefs images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243351 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-9ca8524f72 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-9ca8524f72 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=2243351 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202243351%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 2245723] Review Request: sciplot - Modern C++ scientific plotting library powered by gnuplot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245723 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2023-80b87fbaea 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-2023-80b87fbaea \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-80b87fbaea 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=2245723 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202245723%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 2246225] Review Request: lsb_release - Linux Standard Base Release Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246225 Carl George 鸞 changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Carl George 鸞 --- With those fixes, the package is approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246225 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246225%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 2241432] Review Request: python-pycomposefile - Structured deserialization of Docker Compose files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241432 Ben Beasley changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(code@musicinmybra ||in.net) -- 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=2241432 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2245723] Review Request: sciplot - Modern C++ scientific plotting library powered by gnuplot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245723 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2023-1a0838e9c9 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-1a0838e9c9 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-1a0838e9c9 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245723 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202245723%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 2246225] Review Request: lsb_release - Linux Standard Base Release Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246225 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6565890 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2246225-lsb_release/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06565890-lsb_release/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=2246225 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246225%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 2246225] Review Request: lsb_release - Linux Standard Base Release Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246225 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service --- Created attachment 1995498 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1995498=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6565708 to 6565890 -- 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=2246225 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246225%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 2246225] Review Request: lsb_release - Linux Standard Base Release Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246225 --- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa --- (In reply to Carl George 鸞 from comment #5) > The /usr/bin/lsb_release path in this package conflicts with the same path > in redhat-lsb-core. Implicit conflicts are not allowed. I don't expect > either upstream will rename as the third party tools often require the > lsb_release command specifically, so you need to add an explicit `Conflicts: > redhat-lsb-core` line. > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/ > #_acceptable_uses_of_conflicts > Addressed. > = > === > > Add a comment above the patch to describe the upstream status. This could > be a link to an upstream bug report, pull request, or commit. > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > PatchUpstreamStatus/ > Addressed. > = > === > > Optionally, you can use %make_build and %make_install instead of calling > make directly. The parallel aspect isn't strictly required since this is a > noarch package, but it is still best practice in case any other default > flags are ever added to %make_build. > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_parallel_make > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_why_the_makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used > > = > === > > Optionally, you can use Source and Patch (unnumbered), which works all the > back to EL9. > > = > === > Skipping these. -- 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=2246225 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246225%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 2246225] Review Request: lsb_release - Linux Standard Base Release Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246225 --- Comment #7 from Neal Gompa --- I updated them in place, but just FYI: Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/lsb_release.spec SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/lsb_release-3.2-1.fc39.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=2246225 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246225%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 2246225] Review Request: lsb_release - Linux Standard Base Release Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246225
--- Comment #5 from Carl George 鸞 ---
The /usr/bin/lsb_release path in this package conflicts with the same path in
redhat-lsb-core. Implicit conflicts are not allowed. I don't expect either
upstream will rename as the third party tools often require the lsb_release
command specifically, so you need to add an explicit `Conflicts:
redhat-lsb-core` line.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/#_acceptable_uses_of_conflicts
Add a comment above the patch to describe the upstream status. This could be a
link to an upstream bug report, pull request, or commit.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatus/
Optionally, you can use %make_build and %make_install instead of calling make
directly. The parallel aspect isn't strictly required since this is a noarch
package, but it is still best practice in case any other default flags are ever
added to %make_build.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_parallel_make
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_why_the_makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used
Optionally, you can use Source and Patch (unnumbered), which works all the back
to EL9.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[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]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 591 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[Bug 2133482] Review Request: stansoft - A streamlined accounting software solution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482 Fedora Review Service changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://www.stansoft.org --- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6565820 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2133482-stansoft/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06565820-stansoft/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=2133482 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202133482%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 2117046] Review Request: pilotlog - A pilot logbook for logging flight time
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117046 Fedora Review Service changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://pilotlog.stansoft.or ||g --- Comment #14 from Fedora Review Service --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6565818 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2117046-pilotlog/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06565818-pilotlog/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=2117046 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202117046%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 2133482] Review Request: stansoft - A streamlined accounting software solution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482 --- Comment #5 from Stansoft --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/stansoft/Stansoft/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06565805-stansoft/stansoft.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/stansoft/Stansoft/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06565805-stansoft/stansoft-8.5-1.fc40.src.rpm Packaged with the system aubit4gl rpm package -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202133482%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 2117046] Review Request: pilotlog - A pilot logbook for logging flight time
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117046 --- Comment #13 from Stansoft --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/stansoft/pilotlog/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06565804-pilotlog/pilotlog.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/stansoft/pilotlog/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06565804-pilotlog/pilotlog-10-1.fc40.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117046 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202117046%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 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 Stansoft changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|2133482 | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482 [Bug 2133482] Review Request: stansoft - A streamlined accounting software solution -- 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 2133482] Review Request: stansoft - A streamlined accounting software solution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133482 Stansoft 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=2133482 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2246225] Review Request: lsb_release - Linux Standard Base Release Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246225 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6565708 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2246225-lsb_release/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06565708-lsb_release/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=2246225 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246225%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 2246225] Review Request: lsb_release - Linux Standard Base Release Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246225 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Review Service --- Created attachment 1995486 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1995486=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6565551 to 6565708 -- 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=2246225 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246225%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 2246225] Review Request: lsb_release - Linux Standard Base Release Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246225 --- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa --- [fedora-review-service-build] -- 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=2246225 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246225%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 2241620] Review Request: gocryptfs - Encrypted overlay filesystem written in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241620 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com ||) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241620 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2241620] Review Request: gocryptfs - Encrypted overlay filesystem written in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241620
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
Note: openssl1.1-devel is deprecated, you must not depend on it.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/deprecating-packages/
H, fedora-review came up with this issue on its own. The funny thing is
that I do not see openssl1.1-devel in root.log, so it wasn't even installed.
I suspect that fedora-review saw that this package BuildRequires both
pkgconfig(libcrypto) and pkgconfig(openssl), and saw that openssl1.1-devel,
a deprecated package, Provides both of those. Well, openssl-devel Provides
them, too. I'm not sure what the right thing to do is here. Perhaps this
package should BuildRequires: openssl-devel explicitly to be sure that
openssl1.1-devel can't be used to fulfill the BuildRequires?
- Can you remove /usr/share/doc/gocryptfs/Documentation/.gitignore from the
binary package? I don't see why MANPAGE-render.bash should be there either.
Both files are also in golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel.
- There are man pages in /usr/share/doc/gocryptfs/Documentation. Some are also
in /usr/share/man/man1, and some aren't. Shouldn't they all be there instead
of in the Documentation directory? The man pages are also in the
golang-github-rfjakob-gocryptfs-devel, which doesn't seem right since that
package contains no binaries.
- There are no debuginfo or debugsource packages for the gocryptfs package,
which contains binaries. Shouldn't there be?
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 559702 bytes in 40 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package 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]:
[Bug 2246225] Review Request: lsb_release - Linux Standard Base Release Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246225 Fedora Review Service changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://github.com/thkukuk/ ||lsb-release_os-release --- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6565551 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2246225-lsb_release/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06565551-lsb_release/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=2246225 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246225%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 2246225] Review Request: lsb_release - Linux Standard Base Release Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246225 Carl George 鸞 changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|c...@redhat.com CC||c...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246225 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2246225] New: Review Request: lsb_release - Linux Standard Base Release Tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246225 Bug ID: 2246225 Summary: Review Request: lsb_release - Linux Standard Base Release Tools Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ngomp...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/lsb_release.spec SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/lsb_release-3.2-1.fc39.src.rpm Description: Linux Standard Base Release Tools, ported to use os-release(5). Fedora Account System Username: ngompa -- 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=2246225 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246225%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 2241620] Review Request: gocryptfs - Encrypted overlay filesystem written in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241620 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||loganje...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Jerry James --- I will take this 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=2241620 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202241620%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 2241611] Review Request: golang-github-aperturerobotics-jacobsa-crypto - Go AES-SIV and CMAC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241611
Jerry James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com
||)
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Note the files-duplicate warning from rpmlint below. Doe we need README.md
in both places?
- Since the testing files are included in the binary RPM, their licenses must
be reflected in the spec file License field. At a quick look:
- OpenSSL: testing/gencases/aes_locl.h
- BSD-3-Clause: testing/gencases/siv.h
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 680 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section
[Bug 2241611] Review Request: golang-github-aperturerobotics-jacobsa-crypto - Go AES-SIV and CMAC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241611 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? CC||loganje...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Jerry James --- I will take this 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=2241611 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202241611%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 2241610] Review Request: golang-github-jacobsa-reqtrace - Lightweight request tracing package for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241610
Jerry James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
||needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com
||)
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
This package is APPROVED. Please look at the minor issue below before
importing.
Noting here that this is an unretirement request, since I don't see that
mentioned above.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Note the files-duplicate warning from rpmlint below. Doe we need README.md
in both places?
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
"Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0". 1 files have unknown
license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 1927 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin,
[Bug 2241610] Review Request: golang-github-jacobsa-reqtrace - Lightweight request tracing package for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241610 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? CC||loganje...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Jerry James --- I will take this review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241610 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202241610%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 2241609] Review Request: golang-github-jacobsa-oglematchers - A set of matchers for Go inspired by Google Test for C++ and Google JS Test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241609
Jerry James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
||needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com
||)
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
This package is APPROVED. Please look at the minor issue below before
importing.
Noting here that this is an unretirement request, since I don't see that
mentioned above.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Note the files-duplicate warning from rpmlint below. Doe we need README.md
in both places?
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No
copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0". 2 files have
unknown license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 1943 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf
[Bug 2241608] Review Request: golang-github-jacobsa-oglemock - Mocking framework for Go inspired by Google Mock for C++ and Google JS Test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241608 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com ||) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241608 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2241609] Review Request: golang-github-jacobsa-oglematchers - A set of matchers for Go inspired by Google Test for C++ and Google JS Test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241609 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com CC||loganje...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jerry James --- I will take this review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241609 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202241609%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 2241608] Review Request: golang-github-jacobsa-oglemock - Mocking framework for Go inspired by Google Mock for C++ and Google JS Test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241608
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
Noting here that this is an unretirement request, since I don't see that
mentioned above.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Note the files-duplicate warning from rpmlint below. Doe we need README.md
in both places?
- The file sample/README.markdown is installed in /usr/share/doc, but it is
confusing. It starts "This directory contains sample code...", which is
certainly not true of the directory containing README.markdown. The sample
code is installed, but it is in
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/jacobsa/oglemock/sample.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No
copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "Apache License
2.0 [generated file]". 16 files have unknown license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 4320 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be
[Bug 2241608] Review Request: golang-github-jacobsa-oglemock - Mocking framework for Go inspired by Google Mock for C++ and Google JS Test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241608 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? CC||loganje...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Jerry James --- I will take this 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=2241608 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202241608%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 2243351] Review Request: composefs - Tools to handle creating and mounting composefs images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243351 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2023-9ca8524f72 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-9ca8524f72 -- 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=2243351 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202243351%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 2243351] Review Request: composefs - Tools to handle creating and mounting composefs images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243351 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/composefs -- 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=2243351 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202243351%23c19 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2246133] Re-Review Request: remind - A sophisticated calendar and alarm program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246133 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6565170 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2246133-remind/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06565170-remind/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=2246133 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246133%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 2246133] Re-Review Request: remind - A sophisticated calendar and alarm program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246133 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service --- Created attachment 1995440 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1995440=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6564594 to 6565170 -- 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=2246133 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246133%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 2246133] Re-Review Request: remind - A sophisticated calendar and alarm program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246133 --- Comment #6 from Neil Hanlon --- Spec URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/remind/remind.spec SRPM URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/remind/remind-04.02.07-1.fc38.src.rpm update to eclipseo's work on the spec -- 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=2246133 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246133%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 2246133] Re-Review Request: remind - A sophisticated calendar and alarm program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246133 Neil Hanlon changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(n...@shrug.pw)| --- Comment #5 from Neil Hanlon --- Hi, Thank you for the review and for the updated base to use. I had not had a chance to take another pass at updating it yet, so your effort is much appreciated -- especially around the license part. I was halfway through looking up what to do with moon.c before I got pulled off to other tasks. It looks like the ticket was already approved, so, we're good on that front. I will update the review with the new spec, rebased on your work. -- 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=2246133 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246133%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 2243351] Review Request: composefs - Tools to handle creating and mounting composefs images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243351 Stephen John Smoogen changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|walt...@redhat.com |smo...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243351 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2246133] Re-Review Request: remind - A sophisticated calendar and alarm program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246133 --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- SPEC: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/remind.spec SRPM: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/remind-04.02.07-1.fc39.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=2246133 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246133%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 2245445] Review Request: rust-logos-codegen - Implementation details for logos-codegen and logos-derive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245445
--- Comment #6 from Fabio Valentini ---
Looks like there's some issues:
> %license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE-APACHE
> %license %{crate_instdir}/LICENSE-MI
These are in the wrong subpackage, they should be under "%files devel".
There's also a typo (trailing "T" missing from "LICENSE-MIT".
You also didn't add the files to the package anywhere - they need to be
separate "Source" entries, and need to be copied into the build directory in
the %prep scriptlet.
--
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=2245445
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202245445%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 2241607] Review Request: golang-github-jacobsa-ogletest - Go unit testing framework similar to Google Test for C++ and Google JS Test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241607
Jerry James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
||needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com
||)
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
Noting here that this is an unretirement request, since I don't see that
mentioned above.
This package is APPROVED (but please look at the minor issue below before
importing).
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Note the files-duplicate warning from rpmlint below. Doe we need README.md
in both places?
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No
copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0". 13 files have
unknown license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 5195 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf
[Bug 2241607] Review Request: golang-github-jacobsa-ogletest - Go unit testing framework similar to Google Test for C++ and Google JS Test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2241607 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? CC||loganje...@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Jerry James --- I will take this 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=2241607 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202241607%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 2246133] Re-Review Request: remind - A sophisticated calendar and alarm program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246133
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||needinfo?(n...@shrug.pw)
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
-> use autospec/autochangelog
-> use SPDX for the Licence field
-> This has not been used for decade:
Group: Applications/Productivity
Basically, don't reuse the old spec, it is full of archaism, start from
scratch.
We have some Public Domain to validate:
https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/398
md5.c was already approved.
Here's my current work:
Name: remind
Version:04.02.07
Release:%autorelease
Summary:Sophisticated calendar and alarm program
# GPL-2.0-only: main software
# BSD-2-Clause:
# - src/json.c
# - src/json.h
# GPL-2.0-only AND LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain:
# - src/moon.c
# LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain:
# - src/md5.c
License:GPL-2.0-only AND BSD-2-Clause AND (GPL-2.0-only AND
LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain) AND LicenseRef-Fedora-Public-Domain
URL:https://dianne.skoll.ca/projects/remind/
Source: %url/download/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Source: %url/download/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz.sig
Source: 685A5A5E511D30E2.gpg
# stolen from Debian
Patch: use-system-libjsonparser.diff
BuildRequires: gcc
BuildRequires: gnupg2
BuildRequires: make
BuildRequires: perl(Cairo)
BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
BuildRequires: perl(JSON::MaybeXS)
BuildRequires: perl(Pango)
BuildRequires: perl-generators
BuildRequires: perl-interpreter
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(json-parser)
Recommends: remind-tools
Recommends: remind-gui
%description
Remind is a sophisticated calendar and alarm program. It includes the following
features:
- A sophisticated scripting language and intelligent handling of exceptions
and holidays
- Plain-text, PDF, PostScript and HTML output
- Timed reminders and pop-up alarms
- A friendly graphical front-end for people who don't want to learn the
scripting language
- Facilities for both the Gregorian and Hebrew calendars
- Support for 12 different languages
%packagetools
Summary:Additional tools for remind
# GPL-2.0-or-later:
# - contrib/ical2rem.pl
# - contrib/rem2ics-0.93/rem2ics.spec
# - contrib/remind-conf-mode/remind-conf-mode.el
# GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-2.0-only:
# - contrib/rem2ics-0.93/rem2ics
# GPL-3.0-only:
# - contrib/remind-conf-mode/gpl.txt
License:GPL-2.0-only AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND GPL-3.0-only
%descriptiontools
Tools to convert the remind output to ps, pdf or html as well as example files.
%packagegui
Summary:GUI for remind, a sophisticated calendar and alarm program
License:GPL-2.0-only
BuildArch: noarch
Provides: tkremind = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release}
Requires: %{name} = %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release}
Requires: tcl
Requires: tcllib
Requires: tk >= 8.0
%descriptiongui
Tkremind provides a GUI which allows viewing a calendar and adding or editing
reminders without learning the syntax of Remind.
%prep
%{gpgverify} --keyring='%{SOURCE2}' --signature='%{SOURCE1}'
--data='%{SOURCE0}'
%autosetup -p1 -n %{name}-%{version}
# Disable packlist and perllocal update
sed -i 's|\$(PERL) Makefile.PL|\$(PERL) Makefile.PL NO_PACKLIST=1
NO_PERLLOCAL=1 OPTIMIZE="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"|g' rem2pdf/Makefile.top.in
%build
%configure
%make_build
%install
%make_install
%files
%doc README docs/
%license COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT-AND-APPLE
%{_bindir}/rem
%{_bindir}/%{name}
%{_datadir}/remind/
%{_mandir}/man1/rem.1*
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1*
%files tools
%doc www/ examples/ contrib/
%license COPYRIGHT MICROSOFT-AND-APPLE
%{_bindir}/rem2html
%{_bindir}/rem2pdf
%{_bindir}/rem2ps
%{perl_vendorlib}/*
%{_mandir}/man1/rem2html.1*
%{_mandir}/man1/rem2pdf.1*
%{_mandir}/man1/rem2ps.1*
%{_mandir}/man3/Remind::PDF.3pm*
%{_mandir}/man3/Remind::PDF::Entry.3pm*
%files gui
%{_bindir}/tkremind
%{_mandir}/man1/tkremind.1*
%changelog
%autochangelog
Scratch: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108096973
COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/eclipseo/remind/builds/
Fedora-Review:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eclipseo/remind/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06564953-remind/fedora-review/review.txt
Note the division of packages is based on Debian's one. I reused the -giu
subpackages but added a tkremind Provides to match Debian's.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246133
Report this comment as SPAM:
[Bug 2235085] Review Request: python-typecode-libmagic - ScanCode Toolkit plugin to use pre-installed libmagic library and data file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235085
Jerry James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com
||)
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'BSD 3-Clause'.
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
There is a hyphen missing between BSD and 3.
- In any case, the license in __init__.py, the only file that seems to matter,
is BSD-2-Clause, not BSD-3-Clause.
- Upstream packs a bunch of license files into the dist-info. Since only the
bsd-simplified.LICENSE file is relevant, is it worth the effort to prevent
the other license files from being installed? Note that
public-domain.LICENSE
is empty, so we probably don't want it in any case.
- This package does not have an ExcludeArch tag. The code in __init__.py only
looks for libmagic.so in /usr/lib64, which will fail on 32-bit x86.
- The README.rst file is installed in both the dist-info directory (with the
executable bits stripped off) and in /usr/share/doc (with the executable bits
still on). We probably don't need it in both places. If you choose to have
it in /usr/share/doc, please remove the executable bits.
= 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
"*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 4-Clause
License", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* GNU
General Public License v1.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address
(Mass Ave)]", "*No copyright* ISC License", "BSD 2-Clause License". 9
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jamesjer/2235085-python-typecode-libmagic/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size
[Bug 2235085] Review Request: python-typecode-libmagic - ScanCode Toolkit plugin to use pre-installed libmagic library and data file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235085 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||loganje...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Jerry James --- I will take this review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235085 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202235085%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 2243351] Review Request: composefs - Tools to handle creating and mounting composefs images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243351 Colin Walters changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243351 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2243351] Review Request: composefs - Tools to handle creating and mounting composefs images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243351 Colin Walters changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #18 from Colin Walters --- (To be clear I was more trying to assist/push things forward here and ideally maintenance is collaborative; I think this package is exactly one that should be owned by a joint "image based updates" team) -- 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=2243351 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202243351%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 2235070] Review Request: python-normality - Tiny library for Python text normalisation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235070
Jerry James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
||needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com
||)
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James ---
This package is APPROVED.
If you prefer setting an environment variable to modifying an upstream file,
you can replace the change of pyproject.toml in %prep with this at the top of
%generate_buildrequires and %build:
export SETUPTOOLS_SCM_PRETEND_VERSION='%{version}'
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
License". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/2235070-python-
normality/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 1312 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager
[Bug 2235070] Review Request: python-normality - Tiny library for Python text normalisation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235070 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com CC||loganje...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Jerry James --- I will take this review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2235070 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202235070%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 2243351] Review Request: composefs - Tools to handle creating and mounting composefs images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243351 --- Comment #17 from Stephen John Smoogen --- @walters now that it is assigned to you, can you set the review flag to ?, save, then set the review flag to +. I can't seem to trigger the request because I am the owner of the ticket (the previous failure was because you had set it to + before owning the ticket so it didn't know who to set the from on the ticket.] -- 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=2243351 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202243351%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 2243351] Review Request: composefs - Tools to handle creating and mounting composefs images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243351 Stephen John Smoogen changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|walt...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2243351 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2246133] Re-Review Request: remind - A sophisticated calendar and alarm program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246133 Benson Muite changed: What|Removed |Added CC||benson_mu...@emailplus.org --- Comment #2 from Benson Muite --- Fedora-review warnings: [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/remind/holidays, /usr/share/remind/site, /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Remind, /usr/share/remind, /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Remind/PDF, /usr/share/remind/lang [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Remind, /usr/share/remind/lang, /usr/share/remind/holidays, /usr/share/remind, /usr/share/remind/site, /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Remind/PDF - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. Note: License file COPYRIGHT is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv2'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 Should use GPL-2.0-only or GPL-2.0-or-later Additional licenses: *No copyright* Public domain remind-04.02.07/src/md5.c BSD 2-Clause License remind-04.02.07/src/json.c remind-04.02.07/src/json.h -- 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=2246133 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246133%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 2246133] Re-Review Request: remind - A sophisticated calendar and alarm program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246133 Fedora Review Service changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://dianne.skoll.ca/pro ||jects/remind/ --- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6564594 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2246133-remind/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06564594-remind/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=2246133 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246133%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 2246133] Re-Review Request: remind - A sophisticated calendar and alarm program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246133 Neil Hanlon changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: remind - A |Re-Review Request: remind - |sophisticated calendar and |A sophisticated calendar |alarm program |and alarm program Whiteboard||Unretirement Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- 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=2246133 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 2246133] New: Review Request: remind - A sophisticated calendar and alarm program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2246133 Bug ID: 2246133 Summary: Review Request: remind - A sophisticated calendar and alarm program Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: n...@shrug.pw QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/remind/remind.spec SRPM URL: https://neil.fedorapeople.org/reviews/remind/remind-04.02.07-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: Remind is a sophisticated calendar and alarm program. It includes the following features: * A sophisticated scripting language * Plain-text, PDF, PostScript and HTML output * Timed reminders and pop-up alarms Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108088571 -- 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=2246133 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202246133%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 1654670] Review Request: perl-Crypt-U2F-Server - Low level wrapper around the U2F C library (server side)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654670 Bug 1654670 depends on bug 1654667, which changed state. Bug 1654667 Summary: Review Request: perl-Authen-U2F-Tester - FIDO/U2F Authentication Test Client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654667 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- 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=1654670 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 1654667] Review Request: perl-Authen-U2F-Tester - FIDO/U2F Authentication Test Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654667 Xavier Bachelot changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Last Closed|2023-03-28 00:45:21 |2023-10-25 12:53:09 --- Comment #12 from Xavier Bachelot --- Thanks for the review Petr :-) -- 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=1654667 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201654667%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 1654667] Review Request: perl-Authen-U2F-Tester - FIDO/U2F Authentication Test Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654667 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Authen-U2F-Tester -- 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=1654667 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201654667%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 1654667] Review Request: perl-Authen-U2F-Tester - FIDO/U2F Authentication Test Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654667 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Petr Pisar --- URL and Source0 addresses are Ok. Source0 archive (SHA-512: bff21d639835b77792ae7ec29d076d5caa995505e33a804a32fe91b292c40bb5ab299296cceda9fbbe3962282da063803c031f4f2e0039e35e5577f4df1a5a0d) is original. Ok. Summary verified from lib/Authen/U2F/Tester.pm. Ok. Description verified from lib/Authen/U2F/Tester.pm. Ok. License verified in lib/Authen/U2F/Tester/Keystore/Wrapped.pm, lib/Authen/U2F/Tester/RegisterResponse.pm, lib/Authen/U2F/Tester/Role/Response.pm, lib/Authen/U2F/Tester/Role/Keystore.pm, lib/Authen/U2F/Tester/SignResponse.pm, lib/Authen/U2F/Tester/Keypair.pm, lib/Authen/U2F/Tester/Error.pm, lib/Authen/U2F/Tester/Const.pm, lib/Authen/U2F/Tester.pm, Makefile.PL, LICENSE, and README. Ok. No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok. TODO: Constrain 'perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)' dependency with '>= 6.76' because of NO_PACKLIST=1 NO_PERLLOCAL=1 Makefile.PL arguments. FIX: Build-requires 'coreutils' (perl-Authen-U2F-Tester.spec:59). Test::Pod::Coverage, Pod::Coverage::TrustPod, Test::Pod, and Test::Signature are not used by default. Ok. TODO: Unexport AUTHOR_TESTING environment variable in %check section, or remove t/author-*.t files in %prep section to prevent from accidentally running the author tests. All tests pass. Ok. $ rpmlint perl-Authen-U2F-Tester.spec ../SRPMS/perl-Authen-U2F-Tester-0.03-3.fc40.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Authen-U2F-Tester-0.03-3.fc40.noarch.rpm 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: 3 = 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s rpmlint is Ok. $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Authen-U2F-Tester-0.03-3.fc40.noarch.rpm drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Oct 4 02:00 /usr/share/doc/perl-Authen-U2F-Tester -rw-r--r--1 root root 880 Apr 9 2018 /usr/share/doc/perl-Authen-U2F-Tester/Changes -rw-r--r--1 root root 378 Apr 9 2018 /usr/share/doc/perl-Authen-U2F-Tester/README drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Oct 4 02:00 /usr/share/licenses/perl-Authen-U2F-Tester -rw-r--r--1 root root18355 Apr 9 2018 /usr/share/licenses/perl-Authen-U2F-Tester/LICENSE -rw-r--r--1 root root 2955 Oct 4 02:00 /usr/share/man/man3/Authen::U2F::Tester.3pm.gz -rw-r--r--1 root root 1801 Oct 4 02:00 /usr/share/man/man3/Authen::U2F::Tester::Const.3pm.gz -rw-r--r--1 root root 1642 Oct 4 02:00 /usr/share/man/man3/Authen::U2F::Tester::Error.3pm.gz -rw-r--r--1 root root 1654 Oct 4 02:00 /usr/share/man/man3/Authen::U2F::Tester::Keypair.3pm.gz -rw-r--r--1 root root 1847 Oct 4 02:00 /usr/share/man/man3/Authen::U2F::Tester::Keystore::Wrapped.3pm.gz -rw-r--r--1 root root 1572 Oct 4 02:00 /usr/share/man/man3/Authen::U2F::Tester::RegisterResponse.3pm.gz -rw-r--r--1 root root 1928 Oct 4 02:00 /usr/share/man/man3/Authen::U2F::Tester::Role::Keystore.3pm.gz -rw-r--r--1 root root 1720 Oct 4 02:00 /usr/share/man/man3/Authen::U2F::Tester::Role::Response.3pm.gz -rw-r--r--1 root root 1569 Oct 4 02:00 /usr/share/man/man3/Authen::U2F::Tester::SignResponse.3pm.gz drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Oct 4 02:00 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Authen drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Oct 4 02:00 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Authen/U2F drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Oct 4 02:00 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Authen/U2F/Tester -rw-r--r--1 root root10077 Apr 9 2018 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Authen/U2F/Tester.pm -rw-r--r--1 root root 2872 Apr 9 2018 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Authen/U2F/Tester/Const.pm -rw-r--r--1 root root 2674 Apr 9 2018 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Authen/U2F/Tester/Error.pm -rw-r--r--1 root root 2703 Apr 9 2018 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Authen/U2F/Tester/Keypair.pm drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Oct 4 02:00
[Bug 1654667] Review Request: perl-Authen-U2F-Tester - FIDO/U2F Authentication Test Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654667 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@redhat.com CC||ppi...@redhat.com 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=1654667 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 1654664] Review Request: perl-Authen-U2F - FIDO U2F library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654664 Xavier Bachelot changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Last Closed|2022-07-31 00:45:24 |2023-10-25 09:37:07 --- Comment #16 from Xavier Bachelot --- Thanks for the review Petr :-) -- 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=1654664 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201654664%23c16 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 1654667] Review Request: perl-Authen-U2F-Tester - FIDO/U2F Authentication Test Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654667 Bug 1654667 depends on bug 1654664, which changed state. Bug 1654664 Summary: Review Request: perl-Authen-U2F - FIDO U2F library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654664 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- 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=1654667 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 1654664] Review Request: perl-Authen-U2F - FIDO U2F library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654664 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Authen-U2F -- 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=1654664 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201654664%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 1654664] Review Request: perl-Authen-U2F - FIDO U2F library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654664 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |perl-Authen-U2F - |perl-Authen-U2F - FIDO U2F |Authen::U2F Perl module |library -- 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=1654664 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://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 1654664] Review Request: perl-Authen-U2F - Authen::U2F Perl module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654664 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Petr Pisar --- $ rpmlint perl-Authen-U2F.spec ../SRPMS/perl-Authen-U2F-0.003-4.fc40.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Authen-U2F-0.003-4.fc40.noarch.rpm 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: 3 = 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s rpmlint is Ok. $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Authen-U2F-0.003-4.fc40.noarch.rpm drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Oct 24 02:00 /usr/share/doc/perl-Authen-U2F -rw-r--r--1 root root 337 Oct 4 2017 /usr/share/doc/perl-Authen-U2F/Changes -rw-r--r--1 root root 352 Oct 4 2017 /usr/share/doc/perl-Authen-U2F/README drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Oct 24 02:00 /usr/share/licenses/perl-Authen-U2F -rw-r--r--1 root root18352 Oct 4 2017 /usr/share/licenses/perl-Authen-U2F/LICENSE -rw-r--r--1 root root 1598 Oct 24 02:00 /usr/share/licenses/perl-Authen-U2F/bsd -rw-r--r--1 root root 2767 Oct 24 02:00 /usr/share/man/man3/Authen::U2F.3pm.gz drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Oct 24 02:00 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Authen -rw-r--r--1 root root11071 Oct 4 2017 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Authen/U2F.pm File layout and permissions are Ok. The package builds in Fedora 40 (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108072854). The package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging gudiles. The package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654664 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201654664%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 2215421] Review Request: x2gokdrive - KDrive graphical server backend for X2GoServer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2215421
--- Comment #9 from Jos de Kloe ---
Thanks for this updated version.
I have a few minor remarks.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
Note: openssl1.1-devel is deprecated, you must not depend on it.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/deprecating-packages/
==>note that in case upstream does not yet support a newer version
you can add a comment to explain, and if possible a link to
an upstream issue tracker to explain them that this is an issue.
- License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
==>the copyright file that you included describes GPL-2 and GPL-2+
but the spec file gives GPL-3.0-or-later
You added a comment to explain, but if this package actually
uses a mixture of GPL-2, GPL-2+, and GPL-3+
then maybe the license flag should be GPL-2.0-or-later ?
-rpmspec complains about permissions of the source files.
please fix this.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
[Bug 2142363] Review Request: zig-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Zig packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142363 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6563676 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2142363-zig-srpm-macros/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06563676-zig-srpm-macros/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=2142363 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202142363%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 2142363] Review Request: zig-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Zig packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142363 --- Comment #8 from Jan Drögehoff --- Odd, builds just fine on my copr https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sentry/zig/build/6563667/ Lets try that again [fedora-review-service-build] -- 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=2142363 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla=report-spam_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202142363%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
