[Bug 1480752] Review Request: kcov - Code coverage tool without special compilation options

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480752

Dridi Boukelmoune  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|ASSIGNED



--- Comment #12 from Dridi Boukelmoune  ---
Spec URL: https://dridi.fedorapeople.org/review/kcov.spec
SRPM URL: https://dridi.fedorapeople.org/review/kcov-34-1.fc29.src.rpm

Let it be known that I was wrong and Simon was right, the reason why building
with dyninst worked was because one of its nested dependencies brought python
in. So I updated the spec one last time after trying to build it on platforms
that were initially excluded because of dyninst, wrote a patch for aarch64, and
now only the s390 family is left unsupported.

Scratch build:

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25737460

-- 
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

[Bug 1553835] Review Request: utop - Improved toplevel for OCaml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553835



--- Comment #6 from Sergey Avseyev  ---
I agree, and I checked that *.mli files are not necessary for utop to run. I
moved them into -devel and put versions on Provides tags.

Spec URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/utop/1/utop.spec
SRPM URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/utop/1/utop-2.1.0-1.fc29.src.rpm
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25737349

-- 
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

[Bug 1556913] Review Request: dhtest - A DHCP client simulation on linux

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556913



--- Comment #2 from Pavel Zhukov  ---
tl;dr:
Please include LICENSE file into the package (with %license macros), package
newest release if possible and split %description into few lines (it's too
long). It'd be good to include license text or tag to the sources files headers
if possible



Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: gcc
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/pavel/dhtest/dhtest/licensecheck.txt
[!]: 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.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[-]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in dhtest-
 debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, 

[Bug 1487067] Review Request: botan2 - A C++11 crypto and TLS library, version 2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487067



--- Comment #36 from Thomas Moschny  ---
(In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #31)
> FYI, looks like botan2 hard-codes a bunch of it's own compiler/link flags,
> see:
> src/build-data/cc/gcc.txt
> (and throws away the distro default ones apparently)

Fixed:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/botan2/c/9c37fc9601eb1f5714a93d54c29502b94f15c92f?branch=master

-- 
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

[Bug 1555219] Review Request: R-gdata - Various R Programming Tools for Data Manipulation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1555219



--- Comment #3 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
In fact, these are all run through perl from the R code, so do not really need
to be executable, nor have the shebang.

I also just realized that most of the Perl code there is bundled and can be
removed, which I have already written up.

-- 
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

[Bug 1551306] Review Request: mingw-jsoncpp - JSON library implemented in C++ for MinGW

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551306

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2018-03-16 12:17:38



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
mingw-jsoncpp-1.8.4-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1339227] Review Request: fileobj - Hex Editor written in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339227



--- Comment #4 from William Moreno  ---
Hello, if you dont answer i will close this ticket as DEADREVIEW.

-- 
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

[Bug 1548077] Review Request: libyami - Yet Another Media Infrastructure

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1548077



--- Comment #9 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  ---
Spec URL: http://dl.kwizart.net/review/libyami.spec
SRPM URL:
http://dl.kwizart.net/review/libyami-1.3.0-4.20180228git40fa32e.fc26.src.rpm

Changelog:
- Switch to --with tests (opt-in)
- Improve dist tag with commitdate0
- Correct license
- Disable obsolete libtool macro

I've disabled make tests by default because most tests needs both a XServer but
also a valid vaapi backend. and we cannot expect to have a working one on the
builder anyway. So still relevant for local compilation where a vaapi backend
will be available.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1556649] Review Request: golang-gopkg-sourcemap-1 - Source Maps consumer for Golang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556649

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1557414] Review Request: python-textfsm - Python module for parsing semi-structured text into python tables

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557414

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



-- 
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

[Bug 1557409] Review Request: 90-Second-Portraits - Frantic street painting game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557409

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Please don't use Dropbox for storing files to review, it's a PITA to work
with, fedora-review can't download them automatically. You've got free space on
Fedorapeople with your FAS account, use it. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/fedorapeople.org


 - Then you should add CC-BY and CC-BY-SA to the license field too:

#All assets are CC-BY-SA 4.0, excluding music, which is CC-BY 3.0
License:zlib and MIT and CC-BY-SA and CC-BY

 - License must be included with %license, not %doc:

%license LICENSE.txt



Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- 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 LICENSE.txt is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


= 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "CC by-sa (v4.0)", "Unknown or
 generated". 152 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/90-Second-
 Portraits/review-90-Second-Portraits/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: 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]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
 desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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.
[x]: Final 

[Bug 1157996] Review Request: kanboard - Simple visual task board

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157996



--- Comment #14 from William Moreno  ---
Any update here? If not answer I will must to close this ticket as a DEADREVIEW

-- 
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

[Bug 1065745] Review Request: lltag - tag music files comfortably

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065745

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(ofo...@gmail.com)



--- Comment #15 from William Moreno  ---
Any update  here? If you do not post a update soon I will close this ticket as
a DEADREVIEW

-- 
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

[Bug 1268090] Review Request: python-requests-mock - Mock out responses from the requests package

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268090

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||williamjmore...@gmail.com
  Flags||needinfo?(williamjmorenor@g
   ||mail.com)



--- Comment #5 from William Moreno  ---
Hello any uodate here? If not I will need to close this ticket as a DEADREVIEW

-- 
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

[Bug 1555334] Review Request: golang-x-sync - Go concurrency primitives

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1555334

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



-- 
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

[Bug 1555334] Review Request: golang-x-sync - Go concurrency primitives

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1555334



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-x-sync-0-0.3.20180316gitfd80eb9.fc28 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-41d91bc823

-- 
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

[Bug 1556894] Review Request: golang-github-sdboyer-constext - Cons Contexts together as a pair

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556894



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-sdboyer-constext

-- 
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

[Bug 1557371] New: Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371

Bug ID: 1557371
   Summary: Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for
short term support OpenJDK
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jva...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-openjdk/v04/f28/java-openjdk.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-openjdk/v04/f28/java-openjdk-10.0.0.46-3.fc28.src.rpm
Description: OpenJDK have release  cadence of 6 months. but 3/4 of them are
Short Term Supported for 6 months only.  This package is designed to harbore
them. Currently it is build on openJDK 10. LTSs will go as separate packages.
Fedora Account System Username: jvanek

See announcement:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/discuss/2017-September/004281.html
See java SIG plans:
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/devconf/2018/changesInjavaReleaseProcess.pdf

-- 
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

[Bug 1548759] Review Request: bcal - Storage conversion and expression calculator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1548759

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
bcal-1.8-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-e20aeff118

-- 
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

[Bug 1548761] Review Request: nnn - The missing terminal file browser for X

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1548761

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System  ---
nnn-1.7-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems
still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-cac53b01ee

-- 
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

[Bug 1556689] Review Request: python-octave-kernel - A Jupyter kernel for Octave

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556689

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 #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - License should be BSD, not MIT:

https://github.com/Calysto/octave_kernel/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/octave_kernel → License: BSD 

**I trust you will fix this before import.**




Package approved.


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.
[!]: 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* BSD (unspecified)". 23
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/python-octave-kernel/review-python-octave-
 kernel/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should 

[Bug 1556718] Review Request: python-jupyter-c-kernel - Minimalistic C kernel for Jupyter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556718

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 #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - URL should be:

https://github.com/brendan-rius/jupyter-c-kernel

Package approved.


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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/python-jupyter-c-kernel/review-python-
 jupyter-c-kernel/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all 

[Bug 1245255] Review Request: netspy2ban - GUI Networking Tool and Fail2ban Controller

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245255

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW)
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
  Flags|needinfo?(ftsiadimos@gmail. |
   |com)|
   |needinfo?(ftsiadimos@gmail. |
   |com)|
Last Closed|2015-07-24 15:59:14 |2018-03-16 12:50:42



--- Comment #12 from William Moreno  ---
3 months without answer, closing ad DEADREVIEW


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449
[Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter
response should be blocking this bug.
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1519906] Review Request: CodeReview - Application to perform code review on local Git repositories

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519906



--- Comment #6 from William Moreno  ---
Hello any update here? Some comments? if not I will need to close this ticket
as a DEADREVIEW

-- 
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

[Bug 1372893] Review Request: python-parquet - Python implementation of the Parquet file format

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372893



--- Comment #8 from William Moreno  ---
Any update here? If not I will need to close the ticket as DEADREVIEW

-- 
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

[Bug 1548077] Review Request: libyami - Yet Another Media Infrastructure

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1548077

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Looks good, package 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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1553835] Review Request: utop - Improved toplevel for OCaml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553835

Sergey Avseyev  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2018-03-16 11:49:18



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1551306] Review Request: mingw-jsoncpp - JSON library implemented in C++ for MinGW

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551306



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
mingw-jsoncpp-1.8.4-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1551791] Review Request: waylandpp - Wayland C++ bindings

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551791



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
waylandpp-0.2.2-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1542651] Review Request: libquentier - Set of Qt/ C++ APIs for feature rich desktop clients for Evernote service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1542651

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2018-03-16 12:43:58



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
libquentier-0.4.0-0.3.20180301git4ce8e3b.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27
stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1542654] Review Request: quentier - Cross-platform desktop Evernote client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1542654
Bug 1542654 depends on bug 1542651, which changed state.

Bug 1542651 Summary: Review Request: libquentier - Set of Qt/C++ APIs for 
feature rich desktop clients for Evernote service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1542651

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



-- 
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

[Bug 1348932] Review Request: bash-git-prompt - An informative and fancy bash prompt for Git users

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348932

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||shopkeeper88-fedora@yahoo.c
   ||o.in
  Flags||needinfo?(shopkeeper88-fedo
   ||r...@yahoo.co.in)



--- Comment #8 from William Moreno  ---
Can you please post the last version of the spec in the form of:

Spec URL: 
SRPM URL:

-- 
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

[Bug 1542522] Review Request: jsonnet - a data templating language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1542522

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||naa...@randomvariable.co.uk
  Flags||needinfo?(naadir@randomvari
   ||able.co.uk)



--- Comment #10 from William Moreno  ---
Any update here? If not I will need to close this ticket as a DEADREVIEW

-- 
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

[Bug 1557414] Review Request: python-textfsm - Python module for parsing semi-structured text into python tables

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557414



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-textfsm

-- 
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

[Bug 1557414] Review Request: python-textfsm - Python module for parsing semi-structured text into python tables

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557414



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-textfsm-0.3.2-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-958935732a

-- 
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

[Bug 1483339] Review Request: kiwi - A flexible operating system image builder

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483339



--- Comment #17 from Fabio Valentini  ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #16)
> (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #15)
> > There is one obvious error:
> > 
> > 0) The python2-kiwi package isn't installable on rawhide.
> > 
> > This is caused by using python-NAME Requires in the python2 subpackage. You
> > must use the fully qualified python2-NAME requires, they're all available as
> > far as I can tell:
> > 
> > BR: python-devel -> python2-devel
> > 
> > and
> > 
> > python-docopt -> python2-docopt
> > python-future -> python2-future
> > python-PyYAML -> python2-pyyaml
> > python-requests -> python2-requests
> > python-setuptools -> python2-setuptools
> > python-six -> python2-six
> > python-pyxattr -> python2-pyxattr
> > 
> > (Please double-check. You could even switch to using
> > "python2dist(docopt)"-style dependencies, if you want to be fancy.)
> > 
> > 
> 
> Fixed.

Well, not completely fixed, there are still "BR: python-devel" and "BR:
python-setuptools".

And where have the other dependencies gone? Are they now automatocally covered
by invoking the python dependency generator?

> > There are some other issues:
> > 
> > 1) Can you update the package to the latest version (9.13.9) for the final
> > review? A koji scratch build of the "final" package would be nice, too -
> > just to see if it builds correctly on all arches.
> > 
> 
> It's not yet uploaded to PyPI, so I've done it for 9.13.7 (the latest
> uploaded version).

That's fine.

> > 2) The kiwi-specific virtual provides look strange. Why not use a format
> > like kiwi(image:docker)? Additionally, they are unversioned, which rpmlint
> > complains about. And what is the "Provides: kiwi-schema" for?
> > 
> 
> This is used by obs-build for doing the correct substitution rules for
> certain things, so I can't really change them.

Ack.

> > 3) fedora-review complains about the %defattr(), and claims it's not needed.
> > Please double-check, since I suspect this is a false positive.
> > 
> 
> I've dropped it as tftp-server is packaged slightly differently in Fedora.

Good.

> > 4) Please don't write "%package -n %{name}-cli". Just use "%package cli"
> > (and %description cli, %files cli, etc.). Same goes for -tools and -pxeboot
> > subpackages. I suspect this is left-over from the previous
> > "python-kiwi"-named packaging.
> > 
> 
> Fixed.

Ack.

> > 5) The user and group creation scriptlet in "%pre -n kiwi-pxeboot (-> "%pre
> > pxeboot", btw) doesn't match the example scriptlet in the Packaging
> > Guidelines. Please check against [0]. Also, "Requires(pre): shadow-utils" is
> > missing from "%package pxeboot".
> > 
> 
> Dropped as it's not needed for our tftp-server packaging.

Nice :)

> > 6) The -pxeboot subpackage doesn't install a LICENSE file. Every other
> > combination pulls in a LICENSE file, as far as I can tell.
> > 
> 
> Fixed.

Ack.

> > 7) The file "kiwi/xml_parse.py" has "#!/usr/bin/env python" shebang, which
> > is wrong and must be replaced by "#!/usr/bin/python3" (sic!) and the file
> > marked as executable, or the shebang should be removed entirely (for both
> > the python2 and python3 version). That file isn't even compatible with
> > python2, so ... I guess that should be fixed upstream.
> > 
> 
> Issue filed: https://github.com/SUSE/kiwi/issues/666

I commented on the issue. It looks like you will have to fix this downstream.

> > 8) dracut modules (in "/usr/lib/drac7t/modules.d/99kiwi-lib/*" have bash
> > shebangs, but aren't marked as executable. Is that correct?
> > 
> 
> Issue filed: https://github.com/SUSE/kiwi/issues/668

Ack.

> > 9) The symlinks for "kiwi-ng" and "kiwicompat" don't look like they are
> > created proplerly. rpmlint complains that they are dangling symlinks.
> > 
> 
> This is because the versioned binaries exist in python3-kiwi and the
> unversioned ones are in kiwi-cli. kiwi-cli requires python3-kiwi, so they'll
> be satisfied on install.

OK, I trust that you have verified that this works as it is supposed to.

> > 10) "tools/kversion.c" has the wrong FSF address.
> > 
> 
> Issue filed: https://github.com/SUSE/kiwi/issues/667

Ack.

> > 11) There are unowned directories left:
> > 
> >  Note: Directories without known owners:
> >  /usr/share/bash-completion,
> >  /usr/lib/dracut,
> >  /usr/share/bash-completion/completions,
> >  /usr/lib/dracut/modules.d
> > 
> > Add the missing "Requires:" tags to the appropriate packages, or if that
> > doesn't work, co-own the directories.
> > 
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> > 12) The "/var/lib/tftpboot" directory and some files are already owned by
> > other packages (tftp-server and cobbler):
> > 
> >  Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
> >  /var/lib/tftpboot(tftp-server),
> >  /var/lib/tftpboot/boot(cobbler),
> >  /var/lib/tftpboot/pxelinux.cfg(cobbler)
> > 
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> --
> 
> Spec URL:
> 

[Bug 1557414] Review Request: python-textfsm - Python module for parsing semi-structured text into python tables

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557414

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 #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Package approved.


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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
 (v2.0)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
 in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-textfsm/review-python-
 textfsm/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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: 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 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

Python:
[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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 python2-textfsm , python3-textfsm
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported 

[Bug 1556894] Review Request: golang-github-sdboyer-constext - Cons Contexts together as a pair

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556894

Jan Chaloupka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1556923] Review Request: golang-github-jmank88-nuts - A collections of BoltDB utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556923

Jan Chaloupka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1556915] Review Request: golang-github-nightlyone-lockfile - Handle locking via pid files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556915

Jan Chaloupka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1556923] Review Request: golang-github-jmank88-nuts - A collections of BoltDB utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556923



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-jmank88-nuts

-- 
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

[Bug 1557414] Review Request: python-textfsm - Python module for parsing semi-structured text into python tables

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557414

Javier Peña  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1550514 (RDO-ROCKY)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550514
[Bug 1550514] Tracker: Blockers and Review requests for new RDO Rocky
packages
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1548762] Review Request: imgp - Multi-core batch image resizer and rotator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1548762

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
imgp-2.5-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-6b9e5c485e

-- 
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

[Bug 1548760] Review Request: pdd - Tiny date, time diff calculator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1548760

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
pdd-1.1-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems
still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-5ba4dcb1fe

-- 
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

[Bug 1548764] Review Request: googler - Google Search, Google Site Search, Google News from the terminal

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1548764

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
googler-3.5-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-961933f9c1

-- 
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

[Bug 1483339] Review Request: kiwi - A flexible operating system image builder

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483339



--- Comment #16 from Neal Gompa  ---
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #15)
> There is one obvious error:
> 
> 0) The python2-kiwi package isn't installable on rawhide.
> 
> This is caused by using python-NAME Requires in the python2 subpackage. You
> must use the fully qualified python2-NAME requires, they're all available as
> far as I can tell:
> 
> BR: python-devel -> python2-devel
> 
> and
> 
> python-docopt -> python2-docopt
> python-future -> python2-future
> python-PyYAML -> python2-pyyaml
> python-requests -> python2-requests
> python-setuptools -> python2-setuptools
> python-six -> python2-six
> python-pyxattr -> python2-pyxattr
> 
> (Please double-check. You could even switch to using
> "python2dist(docopt)"-style dependencies, if you want to be fancy.)
> 
> 

Fixed.

> There are some other issues:
> 
> 1) Can you update the package to the latest version (9.13.9) for the final
> review? A koji scratch build of the "final" package would be nice, too -
> just to see if it builds correctly on all arches.
> 

It's not yet uploaded to PyPI, so I've done it for 9.13.7 (the latest uploaded
version).

> 2) The kiwi-specific virtual provides look strange. Why not use a format
> like kiwi(image:docker)? Additionally, they are unversioned, which rpmlint
> complains about. And what is the "Provides: kiwi-schema" for?
> 

This is used by obs-build for doing the correct substitution rules for certain
things, so I can't really change them.

> 3) fedora-review complains about the %defattr(), and claims it's not needed.
> Please double-check, since I suspect this is a false positive.
> 

I've dropped it as tftp-server is packaged slightly differently in Fedora.

> 4) Please don't write "%package -n %{name}-cli". Just use "%package cli"
> (and %description cli, %files cli, etc.). Same goes for -tools and -pxeboot
> subpackages. I suspect this is left-over from the previous
> "python-kiwi"-named packaging.
> 

Fixed.

> 5) The user and group creation scriptlet in "%pre -n kiwi-pxeboot (-> "%pre
> pxeboot", btw) doesn't match the example scriptlet in the Packaging
> Guidelines. Please check against [0]. Also, "Requires(pre): shadow-utils" is
> missing from "%package pxeboot".
> 

Dropped as it's not needed for our tftp-server packaging.

> 6) The -pxeboot subpackage doesn't install a LICENSE file. Every other
> combination pulls in a LICENSE file, as far as I can tell.
> 

Fixed.

> 7) The file "kiwi/xml_parse.py" has "#!/usr/bin/env python" shebang, which
> is wrong and must be replaced by "#!/usr/bin/python3" (sic!) and the file
> marked as executable, or the shebang should be removed entirely (for both
> the python2 and python3 version). That file isn't even compatible with
> python2, so ... I guess that should be fixed upstream.
> 

Issue filed: https://github.com/SUSE/kiwi/issues/666

> 8) dracut modules (in "/usr/lib/drac7t/modules.d/99kiwi-lib/*" have bash
> shebangs, but aren't marked as executable. Is that correct?
> 

Issue filed: https://github.com/SUSE/kiwi/issues/668

> 9) The symlinks for "kiwi-ng" and "kiwicompat" don't look like they are
> created proplerly. rpmlint complains that they are dangling symlinks.
> 

This is because the versioned binaries exist in python3-kiwi and the
unversioned ones are in kiwi-cli. kiwi-cli requires python3-kiwi, so they'll be
satisfied on install.

> 10) "tools/kversion.c" has the wrong FSF address.
> 

Issue filed: https://github.com/SUSE/kiwi/issues/667

> 11) There are unowned directories left:
> 
>  Note: Directories without known owners:
>  /usr/share/bash-completion,
>  /usr/lib/dracut,
>  /usr/share/bash-completion/completions,
>  /usr/lib/dracut/modules.d
> 
> Add the missing "Requires:" tags to the appropriate packages, or if that
> doesn't work, co-own the directories.
> 

Fixed.

> 12) The "/var/lib/tftpboot" directory and some files are already owned by
> other packages (tftp-server and cobbler):
> 
>  Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
>  /var/lib/tftpboot(tftp-server),
>  /var/lib/tftpboot/boot(cobbler),
>  /var/lib/tftpboot/pxelinux.cfg(cobbler)
> 

Fixed.

--

Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/ngompa/KIWI/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00728607-kiwi/kiwi.spec

SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/ngompa/KIWI/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00728607-kiwi/kiwi-9.13.7-0.fc29.2.src.rpm

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25743697

-- 
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

[Bug 1553835] Review Request: utop - Improved toplevel for OCaml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553835



--- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/utop

-- 
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

[Bug 1556915] Review Request: golang-github-nightlyone-lockfile - Handle locking via pid files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556915

Jakub Čajka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Jakub Čajka  ---
LGTM

-- 
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

[Bug 1557414] Review Request: python-textfsm - Python module for parsing semi-structured text into python tables

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557414



--- Comment #1 from Dmitry Tantsur  ---
Looks good at first glance, 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1548763] Review Request: buku - Powerful command-line bookmark manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1548763

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
buku-3.6-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-f0c606debc

-- 
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

[Bug 1542654] Review Request: quentier - Cross-platform desktop Evernote client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1542654

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
quentier-0.4.0-0.3.20180301.git8226e31.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-745363fde1

-- 
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

[Bug 1556661] Review Request: cctz - C++ library for translating between absolute and civil times using time zone rules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556661

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 #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
All good, package approved.


Package Review
==

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


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "Unknown or
 generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 603 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/cctz/review-cctz/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 9 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package 

[Bug 1556894] Review Request: golang-github-sdboyer-constext - Cons Contexts together as a pair

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556894

Jakub Čajka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Jakub Čajka  ---
LGTM

-- 
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

[Bug 1553802] Review Request: gnome-usage - a system resources visualizer for GNOME

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553802

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
PackageKit-1.1.9-2.fc28, adwaita-icon-theme-3.28.0-1.fc28,
aisleriot-3.22.5-1.fc28, anjuta-3.28.0-1.fc28, at-spi2-atk-2.26.2-1.fc28,
at-spi2-core-2.28.0-1.fc28, atk-2.28.1-1.fc28, baobab-3.28.0-1.fc28,
cheese-3.28.0-1.fc28, clutter-gst3-3.0.26-1.fc28, colord-1.4.2-1.fc28,
control-center-3.28.0-1.fc28, corebird-1.7.4-2.fc28, dconf-0.28.0-1.fc28,
dconf-editor-3.28.0-1.fc28, devhelp-3.28.0-1.fc28, eog-3.28.0-1.fc28,
eog-plugins-3.26.2-1.fc28, epiphany-3.28.0.1-1.fc28, evince-3.28.0-1.fc28,
evolution-3.28.0-1.fc28, evolution-data-server-3.28.0-1.fc28,
evolution-ews-3.28.0-1.fc28, evolution-mapi-3.28.0-1.fc28,
file-roller-3.28.0-1.fc28, five-or-more-3.28.0-1.fc28,
four-in-a-row-3.28.0-1.fc28, fwupd-1.0.6-1.fc28,
gala-0.3.0-1.20180311.git6d3253a.fc28, gcr-3.28.0-1.fc28, gdm-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gedit-3.28.0-1.fc28, gedit-plugins-3.28.0-1.fc28, gjs-1.52.0-1.fc28,
glade-3.22.0-1.fc28, glib-networking-2.56.0-1.fc28, glib2-2.56.0-1.fc28,
gmime30-3.2.0-1.fc28, gnome-backgrounds-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-bluetooth-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-boxes-3.27.92-2.fc28,
gnome-builder-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-calculator-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-calendar-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-characters-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-chess-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-clocks-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-color-manager-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-contacts-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-desktop3-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-devel-docs-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-disk-utility-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-documents-3.27.92-2.fc28,
gnome-font-viewer-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-getting-started-docs-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-initial-setup-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-keyring-3.28.0.1-1.fc28,
gnome-klotski-3.22.3-1.fc28, gnome-logs-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-maps-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-mines-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-multi-writer-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-music-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-online-accounts-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-packagekit-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-photos-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-robots-3.22.3-1.fc28,
gnome-session-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-settings-daemon-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-shell-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-shell-extensions-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-software-3.28.0-4.fc28, gnome-sudoku-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-system-monitor-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-taquin-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-todo-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-tweaks-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-usage-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-user-docs-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gobject-introspection-1.56.0-1.fc28, gpaste-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gsettings-desktop-schemas-3.28.0-1.fc28, gspell-1.8.0-1.fc28,
gthumb-3.6.1-1.fc28, gtk3-3.22.29-1.fc28, gtksourceview3-3.24.7-1.fc28,
gucharmap-10.0.4-1.fc28, gvfs-1.36.0-1.fc28, iagno-3.28.0-1.fc28,
jsonrpc-glib-3.28.0-1.fc28, latexila-3.26.1-4.fc28,
libappstream-glib-0.7.7-2.fc28, libdazzle-3.28.0-1.fc28, libgdl-3.28.0-1.fc28,
libgee-0.20.1-1.fc28, libgepub-0.6.0-1.fc28,
libgnome-games-support-1.4.0-1.fc28, libgweather-3.28.0-1.fc28,
libical-3.0.3-2.fc28, libsoup-2.62.0-1.fc28, lightsoff-3.28.0-1.fc28,
mutter-3.28.0-1.fc28, nautilus-3.28.0.1-1.fc28, orca-3.27.91-1.fc28,
pango-1.42.0-1.fc28, polari-3.28.0-1.fc28, pygobject3-3.28.0-1.fc28,
shotwell-0.28.0-1.fc28, simple-scan-3.28.0-1.fc28, swell-foop-3.28.0-1.fc28,
sysprof-3.28.0-1.fc28, template-glib-3.28.0-1.fc28, vala-0.40.0-1.fc28,
webkit2gtk3-2.20.0-2.fc28, wingpanel-2.0.4-6.fc28,
xed-1.6.4-0.2.20180309git3733860.fc28, yelp-3.28.0-1.fc28,
yelp-tools-3.28.0-1.fc28, yelp-xsl-3.28.0-1.fc28, zenity-3.28.0-1.fc28 has been
pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please
make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-5ebe0eb1f2

-- 
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

[Bug 1553684] Rename-Review Request: gnome-tweaks - Customize advanced GNOME 3 options

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553684

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
PackageKit-1.1.9-2.fc28, adwaita-icon-theme-3.28.0-1.fc28,
aisleriot-3.22.5-1.fc28, anjuta-3.28.0-1.fc28, at-spi2-atk-2.26.2-1.fc28,
at-spi2-core-2.28.0-1.fc28, atk-2.28.1-1.fc28, baobab-3.28.0-1.fc28,
cheese-3.28.0-1.fc28, clutter-gst3-3.0.26-1.fc28, colord-1.4.2-1.fc28,
control-center-3.28.0-1.fc28, corebird-1.7.4-2.fc28, dconf-0.28.0-1.fc28,
dconf-editor-3.28.0-1.fc28, devhelp-3.28.0-1.fc28, eog-3.28.0-1.fc28,
eog-plugins-3.26.2-1.fc28, epiphany-3.28.0.1-1.fc28, evince-3.28.0-1.fc28,
evolution-3.28.0-1.fc28, evolution-data-server-3.28.0-1.fc28,
evolution-ews-3.28.0-1.fc28, evolution-mapi-3.28.0-1.fc28,
file-roller-3.28.0-1.fc28, five-or-more-3.28.0-1.fc28,
four-in-a-row-3.28.0-1.fc28, fwupd-1.0.6-1.fc28,
gala-0.3.0-1.20180311.git6d3253a.fc28, gcr-3.28.0-1.fc28, gdm-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gedit-3.28.0-1.fc28, gedit-plugins-3.28.0-1.fc28, gjs-1.52.0-1.fc28,
glade-3.22.0-1.fc28, glib-networking-2.56.0-1.fc28, glib2-2.56.0-1.fc28,
gmime30-3.2.0-1.fc28, gnome-backgrounds-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-bluetooth-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-boxes-3.27.92-2.fc28,
gnome-builder-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-calculator-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-calendar-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-characters-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-chess-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-clocks-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-color-manager-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-contacts-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-desktop3-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-devel-docs-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-disk-utility-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-documents-3.27.92-2.fc28,
gnome-font-viewer-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-getting-started-docs-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-initial-setup-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-keyring-3.28.0.1-1.fc28,
gnome-klotski-3.22.3-1.fc28, gnome-logs-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-maps-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-mines-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-multi-writer-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-music-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-online-accounts-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-packagekit-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-photos-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-robots-3.22.3-1.fc28,
gnome-session-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-settings-daemon-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-shell-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-shell-extensions-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-software-3.28.0-4.fc28, gnome-sudoku-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-system-monitor-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-taquin-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-todo-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-tweaks-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gnome-usage-3.28.0-1.fc28, gnome-user-docs-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gobject-introspection-1.56.0-1.fc28, gpaste-3.28.0-1.fc28,
gsettings-desktop-schemas-3.28.0-1.fc28, gspell-1.8.0-1.fc28,
gthumb-3.6.1-1.fc28, gtk3-3.22.29-1.fc28, gtksourceview3-3.24.7-1.fc28,
gucharmap-10.0.4-1.fc28, gvfs-1.36.0-1.fc28, iagno-3.28.0-1.fc28,
jsonrpc-glib-3.28.0-1.fc28, latexila-3.26.1-4.fc28,
libappstream-glib-0.7.7-2.fc28, libdazzle-3.28.0-1.fc28, libgdl-3.28.0-1.fc28,
libgee-0.20.1-1.fc28, libgepub-0.6.0-1.fc28,
libgnome-games-support-1.4.0-1.fc28, libgweather-3.28.0-1.fc28,
libical-3.0.3-2.fc28, libsoup-2.62.0-1.fc28, lightsoff-3.28.0-1.fc28,
mutter-3.28.0-1.fc28, nautilus-3.28.0.1-1.fc28, orca-3.27.91-1.fc28,
pango-1.42.0-1.fc28, polari-3.28.0-1.fc28, pygobject3-3.28.0-1.fc28,
shotwell-0.28.0-1.fc28, simple-scan-3.28.0-1.fc28, swell-foop-3.28.0-1.fc28,
sysprof-3.28.0-1.fc28, template-glib-3.28.0-1.fc28, vala-0.40.0-1.fc28,
webkit2gtk3-2.20.0-2.fc28, wingpanel-2.0.4-6.fc28,
xed-1.6.4-0.2.20180309git3733860.fc28, yelp-3.28.0-1.fc28,
yelp-tools-3.28.0-1.fc28, yelp-xsl-3.28.0-1.fc28, zenity-3.28.0-1.fc28 has been
pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please
make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-5ebe0eb1f2

-- 
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

[Bug 1553835] Review Request: utop - Improved toplevel for OCaml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553835

Ben Rosser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #7 from Ben Rosser  ---
Great!

Package is approved.

Package Review
==

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

= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 38 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bjr/Programming/fedora/reviews/1553835-utop/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: 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]: 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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in utop-
 devel

 I think this is a false positive, as the dependency is definitely there in
 the spec and rpm -qpR confirms it. So, you can ignore this.

[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should 

[Bug 1553835] Review Request: utop - Improved toplevel for OCaml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553835



--- Comment #8 from Sergey Avseyev  ---
Thank you, Ben.

-- 
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

[Bug 1556923] Review Request: golang-github-jmank88-nuts - A collections of BoltDB utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556923

Jakub Čajka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jca...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jca...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1556915] Review Request: golang-github-nightlyone-lockfile - Handle locking via pid files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556915

Jakub Čajka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jca...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jca...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1556923] Review Request: golang-github-jmank88-nuts - A collections of BoltDB utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556923

Jakub Čajka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Jakub Čajka  ---
LGTM

-- 
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

[Bug 1555219] Review Request: R-gdata - Various R Programming Tools for Data Manipulation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1555219



--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/R-gdata

-- 
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

[Bug 1555225] Review Request: python-mplcairo - A (new) cairo backend for Matplotlib

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1555225

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Can't check install because matplotlib 2.2 is not yet available:

DEBUG util.py:482:  BUILDSTDERR:  Problem: conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:482:  BUILDSTDERR:   - nothing provides python3-matplotlib >= 2.2
needed by python3-mplcairo-0.1-0.1.a1.fc29.x86_64

- Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
  Note: Binary egg files not removed in %prep:
  ./vendor/setuptools_scm-1.15.6.egg
  See:
 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Packaging_eggs_and_setuptools_concerns

   Remove vendor.


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
- Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
  Note: Binary egg files not removed in %prep:
  ./vendor/setuptools_scm-1.15.6.egg
  See:
 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Packaging_eggs_and_setuptools_concerns


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2.1)", "Unknown or
 generated". 42 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-mplcairo/review-
 python-mplcairo/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: 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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does 

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371

jiri vanek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ahug...@redhat.com
   Fixed In Version|ahug...@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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371

jiri vanek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version||ahug...@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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1556362] Review Request: R-cli - Helpers for Developing Command Line Interfaces

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556362

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 #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Package approved.


Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION


= 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". 72 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/R-cli/review-R-cli/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package 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

R:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires.
[x]: The package has the standard %install section.
[x]: Package requires R-core.

= 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[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, 

[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371

jiri vanek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jk...@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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1508950] Review Request: eccodes - a library for decoding and encoding WMO data formats

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1508950



--- Comment #26 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Seems upstream believe that the LGPL files are errors, and thus the whole
project should be ASL 2.0.

 - This:

/usr/share/eccodes/cmake/eccodes-config-version.cmake
/usr/share/eccodes/cmake/eccodes-config.cmake
/usr/share/eccodes/cmake/eccodes-import.cmake
/usr/share/eccodes/cmake/eccodes-targets-relwithdebinfo.cmake
/usr/share/eccodes/cmake/eccodes-targets.cmake

   I think these files should be in %{_libdir}/cmake/%{name}/. And in the
-devel subpackage.

 - Your check part is escaped:

%%check

   Remove the extraneous %.

-- 
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

[Bug 1557409] New: Review Request: 90-Second-Portraits - Frantic street painting game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557409

Bug ID: 1557409
   Summary: Review Request: 90-Second-Portraits - Frantic street
painting game
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: alexjn...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cy2c5ouef13lyql/90-Second-Portraits.spec
SRPM URL:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kxhi76zzunddxvm/90-Second-Portraits-1.01b-1.fc27.src.rpm

Description:
90 Second Portraits is a silly speed painting game developed for Ludum Dare 31
Jam competition. Time is money and you have neither! In 90 SECOND PORTRAITS
you’re paying the bills by speed painting portraits of bypassing customers!
You have 90 seconds to paint the customer and his/her preferred background!
Your work day ends after 5 customers!

Fedora Account System Username: mystro256

-- 
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

[Bug 1556894] Review Request: golang-github-sdboyer-constext - Cons Contexts together as a pair

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556894

Jakub Čajka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jca...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jca...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1556649] Review Request: golang-gopkg-sourcemap-1 - Source Maps consumer for Golang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556649

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Jared Smith  ---
Package is approved.

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/jsmith/Documents/Fedora/Reviews/1556649-golang-gopkg-
 sourcemap-1/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gocode/src,
 /usr/share/gocode
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[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, 

[Bug 1556636] Review Request: golang-gopkg-readline-1 - Pure golang implementation for GNU-Readline kind library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556636

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1555402] Review Request: golang-github-nsf-termbox - A minimalistic API which allows programmers to write text-based user interfaces

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1555402

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 from Jared Smith  ---
Package is APPROVED.

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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 29 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/jsmith/Documents/Fedora/Reviews/1555402-golang-github-nsf-
 termbox/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gocode/src,
 /usr/share/gocode
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/nsf(golang-github-nsf-termbox-go-
 devel), /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/nsf/termbox-go(golang-github-
 nsf-termbox-go-devel), /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/nsf/termbox-
 go/_demos(golang-github-nsf-termbox-go-devel),
 /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com(golang-github-zyedidia-pty-devel,
 golang-github-jlaffaye-ftp-devel, golang-github-nwidger-jsoncolor-
 devel, golang-github-coreos-bbolt-devel, golang, golang-github-chzyer-
 logex-devel, golang-github-AdRoll-goamz-devel, golang-googlecode-
 goprotobuf-devel, golang-github-yuin-gopher-lua-devel, golang-github-
 zyedidia-clipboard-devel, golang-github-spf13-pflag-devel, golang-
 github-grpc-ecosystem-grpc-gateway-devel, etcd-devel, golang-github-
 rfjakob-eme-devel, golang-github-Sirupsen-logrus-devel, golang-github-
 spf13-cobra-devel, golang-github-billziss-gh-cgofuse-devel, golang-
 github-mattn-go-runewidth-devel, golang-github-kdar-factorlog-devel,
 golang-github-gogo-protobuf-devel, golang-github-robertkrimen-otto-
 devel, golang-github-zyedidia-poller-devel, golang-github-zyedidia-
 glob-devel, golang-github-zyedidia-tcell-devel, golang-github-xanzy-
 ssh-agent-devel, golang-github-zyedidia-terminal-devel, golang-github-
 flynn-json5-devel, golang-github-chzyer-test-devel)
[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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 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]: 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 

[Bug 1548763] Review Request: buku - Powerful command-line bookmark manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1548763



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
buku-3.6-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-72d15cff4b

-- 
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

[Bug 1548764] Review Request: googler - Google Search, Google Site Search, Google News from the terminal

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1548764



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
googler-3.5-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-187f8d5b15

-- 
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

[Bug 1555437] Review Request: golang-github-vividcortex-ewma - Exponentially Weighted Moving Average algorithms for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1555437

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 from Jared Smith  ---
Package is APPROVED.

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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/jsmith/Documents/Fedora/Reviews/1555437-golang-github-
 vividcortex-ewma/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gocode/src,
 /usr/share/gocode
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/VividCortex(golang-github-
 VividCortex-ewma-devel),
 /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/VividCortex/ewma(golang-github-
 VividCortex-ewma-devel), /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com(golang-
 github-zyedidia-pty-devel, golang-github-jlaffaye-ftp-devel, golang-
 github-nwidger-jsoncolor-devel, golang-github-coreos-bbolt-devel,
 golang, golang-github-chzyer-logex-devel, golang-github-AdRoll-goamz-
 devel, golang-googlecode-goprotobuf-devel, golang-github-yuin-gopher-
 lua-devel, golang-github-zyedidia-clipboard-devel, golang-github-spf13
 -pflag-devel, golang-github-grpc-ecosystem-grpc-gateway-devel, etcd-
 devel, golang-github-rfjakob-eme-devel, golang-github-Sirupsen-logrus-
 devel, golang-github-spf13-cobra-devel, golang-github-billziss-gh-
 cgofuse-devel, golang-github-mattn-go-runewidth-devel, golang-github-
 kdar-factorlog-devel, golang-github-gogo-protobuf-devel, golang-
 github-robertkrimen-otto-devel, golang-github-zyedidia-poller-devel,
 golang-github-zyedidia-glob-devel, golang-github-zyedidia-tcell-devel,
 golang-github-xanzy-ssh-agent-devel, golang-github-zyedidia-terminal-
 devel, golang-github-flynn-json5-devel, golang-github-chzyer-test-
 devel)
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: 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 

[Bug 1556636] Review Request: golang-gopkg-readline-1 - Pure golang implementation for GNU-Readline kind library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556636



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Thanks for the review.

Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eclipseo/packaging/56089be/golang-gopkg-readline-1.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/micro/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00728791-golang-gopkg-readline-1/golang-gopkg-readline-1-1.4-3.fc29.src.rpm

Spec diff:
https://github.com/eclipseo/packaging/commit/56089be7595cc45ac6b96d238e3a1f512881d65f#diff-7dea4165b391e4c0ec22559250396d75

-- 
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

[Bug 1555434] Review Request: golang-github-unknwon-goconfig - Configuration file parser for the Go Programming Language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1555434



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-unknwon-goconfig

-- 
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

[Bug 1556649] Review Request: golang-gopkg-sourcemap-1 - Source Maps consumer for Golang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556649

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



-- 
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

[Bug 1549011] Review Request: i3blocks - highly flexible status line for the i3 window manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1549011



--- Comment #3 from William Moreno  ---
Fedora review run fine with this package. will upload results soon.

-- 
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

[Bug 1504512] Review Request: classifier - Organize files in your current directory, by classifying them into folders of music, pdfs, images, etc.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1504512



--- Comment #2 from William Moreno  ---
Fedora review run fine with this package. will upload results soon.

-- 
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

[Bug 1556649] Review Request: golang-gopkg-sourcemap-1 - Source Maps consumer for Golang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556649



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-gopkg-sourcemap-1-1.0.5-3.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora
28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-bc1745a911

-- 
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

[Bug 1268090] Review Request: python-requests-mock - Mock out responses from the requests package

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268090

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||needinfo?(williamjmorenor@g
   ||mail.com)



--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
(In reply to William Moreno from comment #5)
> Hello any uodate here? If not I will need to close this ticket as a
> DEADREVIEW

Well that's your own package, if you bump the version to 1.4.0, I'll review 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

[Bug 1548077] Review Request: libyami - Yet Another Media Infrastructure

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1548077



--- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libyami

-- 
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

[Bug 1556636] Review Request: golang-gopkg-readline-1 - Pure golang implementation for GNU-Readline kind library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556636



--- Comment #1 from Jared Smith  ---
The package has some minor issues, see below:

Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- There seems to be some code licensed under the WTFPL license.
  See licensecheck information below.
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines


= 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "do What The Fuck you want to Public
 License", "Unknown or generated". 42 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/jsmith/Documents/Fedora/Reviews/1556636-golang-gopkg-
 readline-1/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gocode/src,
 /usr/share/gocode, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/chzyer(golang-github-chzyer-logex-
 devel, golang-github-chzyer-test-devel)
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 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: 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]: 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:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in golang-
 gopkg-readline-1-devel , compat-golang-github-chzyer-readline-devel
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file 

[Bug 1555437] Review Request: golang-github-vividcortex-ewma - Exponentially Weighted Moving Average algorithms for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1555437

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1556649] Review Request: golang-gopkg-sourcemap-1 - Source Maps consumer for Golang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556649



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Thanks for the reviews!

-- 
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

[Bug 1556649] Review Request: golang-gopkg-sourcemap-1 - Source Maps consumer for Golang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556649



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-gopkg-sourcemap-1

-- 
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

[Bug 1555402] Review Request: golang-github-nsf-termbox - A minimalistic API which allows programmers to write text-based user interfaces

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1555402

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1268090] Review Request: python-requests-mock - Mock out responses from the requests package

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268090



--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Also the summary and description looks wrong.

-- 
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

[Bug 1555437] Review Request: golang-github-vividcortex-ewma - Exponentially Weighted Moving Average algorithms for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1555437



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-vividcortex-ewma

-- 
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

[Bug 1268090] Review Request: python-requests-mock - Mock out responses from the requests package

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268090

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
  Flags|needinfo?(williamjmorenor@g |
   |mail.com)   |
   |needinfo?(williamjmorenor@g |
   |mail.com)   |
Last Closed||2018-03-16 15:59:42



--- Comment #8 from William Moreno  ---
True.

-- 
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

[Bug 1548761] Review Request: nnn - The missing terminal file browser for X

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1548761



--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System  ---
nnn-1.7-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems
still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-a3439ef672

-- 
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

[Bug 1548759] Review Request: bcal - Storage conversion and expression calculator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1548759



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
bcal-1.8-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-a5468159e3

-- 
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

[Bug 1542654] Review Request: quentier - Cross-platform desktop Evernote client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1542654



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
quentier-0.4.0-0.3.20180301.git8226e31.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-1fff7a03fa

-- 
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

[Bug 1548760] Review Request: pdd - Tiny date, time diff calculator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1548760



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
pdd-1.1-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems
still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-fec2b3a2a4

-- 
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

[Bug 1548762] Review Request: imgp - Multi-core batch image resizer and rotator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1548762



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
imgp-2.5-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-7dd2ddec29

-- 
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

[Bug 1555434] Review Request: golang-github-unknwon-goconfig - Configuration file parser for the Go Programming Language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1555434

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 from Jared Smith  ---
Package is APPROVED.

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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
 (v2.0)". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
 in /home/jsmith/Documents/Fedora/Reviews/1555434-golang-github-
 unknwon-goconfig/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gocode/src,
 /usr/share/gocode
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/Unknwon(golang-github-Unknwon-
 goconfig-devel), /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/Unknwon/goconfig
 (golang-github-Unknwon-goconfig-devel),
 /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com(golang-github-zyedidia-pty-devel,
 golang-github-jlaffaye-ftp-devel, golang-github-nwidger-jsoncolor-
 devel, golang-github-coreos-bbolt-devel, golang, golang-github-chzyer-
 logex-devel, golang-github-AdRoll-goamz-devel, golang-googlecode-
 goprotobuf-devel, golang-github-yuin-gopher-lua-devel, golang-github-
 zyedidia-clipboard-devel, golang-github-spf13-pflag-devel, golang-
 github-grpc-ecosystem-grpc-gateway-devel, etcd-devel, golang-github-
 rfjakob-eme-devel, golang-github-Sirupsen-logrus-devel, golang-github-
 spf13-cobra-devel, golang-github-billziss-gh-cgofuse-devel, golang-
 github-mattn-go-runewidth-devel, golang-github-kdar-factorlog-devel,
 golang-github-gogo-protobuf-devel, golang-github-robertkrimen-otto-
 devel, golang-github-zyedidia-poller-devel, golang-github-zyedidia-
 glob-devel, golang-github-zyedidia-tcell-devel, golang-github-xanzy-
 ssh-agent-devel, golang-github-zyedidia-terminal-devel, golang-github-
 flynn-json5-devel, golang-github-chzyer-test-devel)
[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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 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]: 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.

[Bug 800265] Review Request: perl-Net-Google-Spreadsheets - Perl module for using Google Spreadsheets API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800265

Elliott Sales de Andrade  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
 Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW)
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed||2018-03-16 18:47:53




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449
[Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter
response should be blocking this bug.
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1556689] Review Request: python-octave-kernel - A Jupyter kernel for Octave

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556689



--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-octave-kernel

-- 
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

[Bug 1556661] Review Request: cctz - C++ library for translating between absolute and civil times using time zone rules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556661



--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/cctz

-- 
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