needinfo canceled: [Bug 1118885] Review Request: gsimplecal - Simple GTK calendar

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review

Package Review  has canceled Package
Review 's request for James Wrigley
's needinfo:
Bug 1118885: Review Request: gsimplecal - Simple GTK calendar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118885



--- Comment #14 from Package Review 
---
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1118885] Review Request: gsimplecal - Simple GTK calendar

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118885



--- Comment #12 from Ranjan Maitra  ---
I did review this package in 2015, according to the procedures in place then,
when I was only eligible to be an unofficial reviewer, but nothing came of it
in the sense that there was no action on the suggestions taken by the
submitter. I am not sure if there is any value in progressing further without
any assurance that the submitter is interested. In fact, the submitted links do
not work. But you can feel free to take it over also.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1118885] Review Request: gsimplecal - Simple GTK calendar

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118885



--- Comment #11 from Petr Pisar  ---
If you want to review the package, you need to follow the procedure
. Especially
assign this bug report to yourself, change a state of the bug to ASSIGNED, and
set "fedora-review" flag to 
"?". So far nobody have done it.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1118885] Review Request: gsimplecal - Simple GTK calendar

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118885



--- Comment #10 from Ranjan Maitra  ---
I think that this packaging is going nowhere. Which is unfortunate because
reviewers (in this case me) spend time on providing reviews which are not acted
upon.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1118885] Review Request: gsimplecal - Simple GTK calendar

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118885

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ppi...@redhat.com
   Assignee|puiterw...@redhat.com   |nob...@fedoraproject.org




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1118885] Review Request: gsimplecal - Simple GTK calendar

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118885



--- Comment #9 from Ranjan Maitra  ---
Sorry, wanted to add that the review log has the following:

 File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/helpers_mixin.py", line 94
, in urlretrieve
raise DownloadError(str(err), url)
DownloadError: 'Error [Errno socket error] [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED]
cert
ificate verify failed (_ssl.c:590) downloading
https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora
/python-nsdf-0.0-1.git2153112.fc24.src.rpm'
12-20 11:29 root ERRORERROR: 'Error [Errno socket error] [SSL:
CERTI
FICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate verify failed (_ssl.c:590) downloading
https:/
/in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/python-nsdf-0.0-1.git2153112.fc24.src.rpm' (logs in
/
home/maitra/.cache/fedora-review.log)

Not sure about these errors: I have all the requires installed.)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1118885] Review Request: gsimplecal - Simple GTK calendar

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118885



--- Comment #8 from Ranjan Maitra  ---
Tried fedora-review on this and get errors as follows:

$ fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1292209
INFO: Processing bugzilla bug: 1292209
INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 1292209
INFO:   --> SRPM url:
https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/python-nsdf-0.0-1.git2153112.fc24.src.rpm
INFO:   --> Spec url: https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/python-nsdf.spec
INFO: Using review directory: /home/maitra/Downloads/mock/1292209-python-nsdf
INFO: Downloading .spec and .srpm files
ERROR: 'Error [Errno socket error] [SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED] certificate
verify failed (_ssl.c:590) downloading
https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/python-nsdf-0.0-1.git2153112.fc24.src.rpm'
(logs in /home/maitra/.cache/fedora-review.log)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1118885] Review Request: gsimplecal - Simple GTK calendar

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118885



--- Comment #7 from Ranjan Maitra  ---
I have reviewed your package and here is my report. Note that I also used
fedora-review tool which I would suggest you do, also. Some of the responses
from fedora-review tool, I believe, are not useful to your package, but many
others, eg: licensing are. 

You will need to create a mock account (after instalation of mock) and then
run:

$ fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1118885

(Note: because of a bug, fedora-review hangs almost interminably, but
eventually does terminate.)

...
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
- 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 COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[ ]: 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: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 25 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/maitra/Downloads/mock/1118885-gsimplecal/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 4 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name

[Bug 1118885] Review Request: gsimplecal - Simple GTK calendar

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118885



--- Comment #6 from James Wrigley  ---
Thanks :)

Spec URL: https://jamesnz.fedorapeople.org/gsimplecal/gsimplecal.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jamesnz.fedorapeople.org/gsimplecal/gsimplecal-2.1-1.fc23.src.rpm
Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12050029

Output of rpmlint:
$ SPECS  rpmlint gsimplecal.spec
../RPMS/x86_64/gsimplecal-2.1-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm
../SRPMS/gsimplecal-2.1-1.fc23.src.rpm
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1118885] Review Request: gsimplecal - Simple GTK calendar

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118885



--- Comment #5 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
pbrobinson's scratch build of
gtk-murrine-engine?#b4bddbf235c281d671c99e8008f609b6d4e314d0 for
epel7-archbootstrap and
git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gtk-murrine-engine?#b4bddbf235c281d671c99e8008f609b6d4e314d0
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12037955

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1118885] Review Request: gsimplecal - Simple GTK calendar

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118885



--- Comment #4 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
pbrobinson's scratch build of
gtk-sharp-beans?#bbba0aef7a4bd673006df5b9a85a5763d9c026bc for
epel7-archbootstrap and
git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gtk-sharp-beans?#bbba0aef7a4bd673006df5b9a85a5763d9c026bc
failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12037959

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1118885] Review Request: gsimplecal - Simple GTK calendar

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118885



--- Comment #3 from Ranjan Maitra  ---
I am an unofficial reviewer. But I can provide my review of this package, FWIW,
 since I have used the software in the past. Could you please, however, update
the src.rpm to build with Fedora 23?

Thanks!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1118885] Review Request: gsimplecal - Simple GTK calendar

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118885



--- Comment #2 from James Wrigley  ---
Yes.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1118885] Review Request: gsimplecal - Simple GTK calendar

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118885

Ranjan Maitra  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||itsme_...@yahoo.com



--- Comment #1 from Ranjan Maitra  ---
Does this package still need a 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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1118885] Review Request: gsimplecal - Simple GTK calendar

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1118885

James Wrigley  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|puiterw...@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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review