[Bug 1729302] Review Request: spamassassin-dqs - SpamAssassin plugin for Spamhaus Data Query Service (DQS)

2021-07-07 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1729302

Mattia Verga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2021-07-07 16:40:30



--- Comment #5 from Mattia Verga  ---
Thanks. So, with the package imported and built I'm going to close this 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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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 1729302] Review Request: spamassassin-dqs - SpamAssassin plugin for Spamhaus Data Query Service (DQS)

2021-07-05 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1729302

Robert Scheck  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(redhat-bugzilla@l |
   |inuxnetz.de)|



--- Comment #4 from Robert Scheck  ---
Yes, sorry. That somehow slipped through after upstream requested a minor
behaviour change.


-- 
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure


[Bug 1729302] Review Request: spamassassin-dqs - SpamAssassin plugin for Spamhaus Data Query Service (DQS)

2021-07-04 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1729302

Mattia Verga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mattia.ve...@protonmail.com
  Flags||needinfo?(redhat-bugzilla@l
   ||inuxnetz.de)



--- Comment #3 from Mattia Verga  ---
Package never imported, Robert are you still interested in this?


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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 1729302] Review Request: spamassassin-dqs - SpamAssassin plugin for Spamhaus Data Query Service (DQS)

2019-07-22 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1729302



--- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/spamassassin-dqs

-- 
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 1729302] Review Request: spamassassin-dqs - SpamAssassin plugin for Spamhaus Data Query Service (DQS)

2019-07-13 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1729302

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - The %{perl_vendorlib} macro is defined in the perl package, so you need it
as a BR:

BuildRequires:  perl-interpreterensure

 - add a comment above the patch to explain its use:

# correct loadplugin configuration in /etc/mail/spamassassin/sh.pre by default
Patch0: spamassassin-dqs-1.0.3-loadplugin.patch



Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issues before import.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated",
 "Apache License (v2.0)". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output
 of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/spamassassin-dqs/review-
 spamassassin-dqs/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[