[Bug 1040517] Review Request: julia - High-level, high-performance dynamic language for technical computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #66 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
%files doc
%doc %{_docdir}/julia/
Even shorter:
%files doc
%{_docdir}/julia/
That's because %_docdir is in default %__docdir_path list.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141896] Review Request: cadvisor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141896 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added CC||volke...@gmx.at --- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- Please add the summary and description to your review request, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142049] Review Request: nodejs-chainsaw - Build chainable fluent interfaces the easy way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142049 Parag pnem...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806 [Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1119148] Review Request: perl-Daemon-Control - Create init scripts in Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119148 Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i...@cicku.me Flags||needinfo?(i...@cicku.me) --- Comment #2 from Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com --- Do you have any updates? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1119117] Review Request: perl-Algorithm-Cron - Abstract implementation of the cron(8) scheduling algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119117 Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i...@cicku.me Flags||needinfo?(i...@cicku.me) --- Comment #2 from Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com --- Do you have any updates? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141880] Review Request: golang-googlecode-gcfg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141880 --- Comment #3 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com --- Hello, Lokesh, thanks for all those package being reviewed :). I will prepare all srpm and modified spec files after rpmlint on my fedorapeople page. So we does not have to make a pull request for each change. When all spec files are ok to go, then we can make one big pull request for all of them :). I was hoping I will make all srpms and rpmlint outputs yesterday :). Working on it right now. You have been building kubernetes deps from these reviews or before 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141903] Review Request: php-horde-horde-lz4 - Horde LZ4 Compression Extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141903 --- Comment #1 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- As upstream have merged my https://github.com/horde/horde/pull/102 which allow to build with system liblz4 and release version 1.0.7 (only those changes). spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/remicollet/remirepo/62eca7a2f4735bb23169d9bc317296240887d1ce/php/horde/php-horde-horde-lz4/php-horde-horde-lz4.spec srpm: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-horde-horde-lz4-1.0.7-1.remi.src.rpm Copr test build: http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/remi/morephp/build/32134/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141807] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-go-etcd - The official etcd v0.2 client library for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141807 Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |golang-github-coreos-go-etc |golang-github-coreos-go-etc |d |d - The official etcd v0.2 ||client library for Go --- Comment #2 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-coreos-go-etcd/golang-github-coreos-go-etcd.spec SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-coreos-go-etcd/golang-github-coreos-go-etcd-0.2.rc1-0.1.git23142f67.fc21.src.rpm Description: This package contains library source intended for building other packages which use coreos/go-etcd. rpmlint golang-github-coreos-go-etcd.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Initial package started by Adam Miller -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141807] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-go-etcd - The official etcd v0.2 client library for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141807 Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141807] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-go-etcd - The official etcd v0.2 client library for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141807 Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|NotReady| --- Comment #3 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com --- $ rpmlint /root/rpmbuild/SRPMS/golang-github-coreos-go-etcd-0.2.rc1-0.1.git23142f67.fc21.src.rpm /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/golang-github-coreos-go-etcd-devel-0.2.rc1-0.1.git23142f67.fc21.x86_64.rpm golang-github-coreos-go-etcd.spec golang-github-coreos-go-etcd-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) systemd - systems, system, system d golang-github-coreos-go-etcd-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systemd - systems, system, system d 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7587063 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141817] Review Request: golang-github-google-gofuzz - Library for populating go objects with random values
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141817 Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |golang-github-google-gofuzz |golang-github-google-gofuzz ||- Library for populating go ||objects with random values --- Comment #2 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-google-gofuzz/golang-github-google-gofuzz.spec SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-google-gofuzz/golang-github-google-gofuzz-0-0.3.gitaef70dac.fc21.src.rpm Description: Library for populating go objects with random values Initial package started by Adam Miller, continued by Eric Paris. $ rpmlint /root/rpmbuild/SRPMS/golang-github-google-gofuzz-0-0.3.gitaef70dac.fc21.src.rpm /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/golang-github-google-gofuzz-devel-0-0.3.gitaef70dac.fc21.noarch.rpm *.spec 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7587498 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1040517] Review Request: julia - High-level, high-performance dynamic language for technical computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #67 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr ---
(In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #65)
1) I believe none of the installed Makefile files are required
(or functional):
$ find /usr/share/julia/ -name Makefile
/usr/share/julia/test/perf/micro/Makefile
/usr/share/julia/test/perf/shootout/Makefile
/usr/share/julia/test/perf/Makefile
/usr/share/julia/test/Makefile
/usr/share/julia/examples/Makefile
Right, these only work from inside the source tree anyway. I've even removed
the perf suite, which does not work when installed, and contains a few files
with non-MIT licenses.
%check now fails like this:
exception on 1: ERROR: opening file perf/kernel/imdb-1.tsv: No such file or
directory
in open at ./iostream.jl:117
in open at ./iostream.jl:135
while loading readdlm.jl, in expression starting on line 4
ERROR: opening file perf/kernel/imdb-1.tsv: No such file or directory
in open at ./iostream.jl:117
in open at ./iostream.jl:135
while loading readdlm.jl, in expression starting on line 4
while loading /home/pcpa/rpmbuild/BUILD/julia-0.3.0/test/runtests.jl, in
expression starting on line 35
Makefile:16: recipe for target 'readdlm' failed
make: *** [readdlm] Error 1
Woops! I got tired of running the checks again and again so I disable them. I
guess I should have run them at least once...
So let's keep installing the perf suite for now, only removing Makefiles.
2) Is it really required to install /usr/share/julia/test ?
I checked it, and apparently must call the runtests.jl, I
did not change the environment, but apparently not everything
was fine:
[...]
Yeah, currently the backtrace test is failing with LLVM 3.4
(https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/8099). I think it's still better
to ship this file, hopefully this will get fixed soon enough. (FWIW, this
file can be called by Base.runtests().)
3) Can it be changed to install documentation in %_docdir?
All documentation is under /usr/share/julia
Yes, I've filed a bug upstream, and for now I move the files manually:
https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/8367
Looks almost good :) Just that now there are two packages
owning LICENSE.md and other UPPERCASE files.
Ah, I've added a series of %exclude for -doc.
BTW, you could change:
%files doc
%dir %{_docdir}/julia/
%doc %{_docdir}/julia/*
to
%files doc
%doc %{_docdir}/julia/
Fixed. Michael: I prefer keeping the explicit %doc because I won't remember it
happens automatically. :-)
4) I believe there is something wrong with the documentation. It
should install processed documentation. I try to build it
manually, by switching to the doc subdir I see this:
[...]
So, I believe just the hack to create juliadoc/juliadoc/__init__.py is not
enough.
Yes, I've filed this in the same upstream issue. I'd say for now let's
install the .rst files, which are readable if not pretty, and wait for
upstream to make it possible to install HTML files properly.
I believe it can be fixed in the current rpm, probably a patch actually
creating an usable juliadoc/juliadoc/__init__.py or whatever is
missing from the tarball.
Yes, copying these files from Julia git seems to work, but then I need to carry
the patch and move files around by hand. Is it really worth it? I'd prefer
fixing this upstream directly, I've filed an issue:
https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/8378
5) It has been commented before, but it really would be better to
have a versioned .so under %_libdir; subdirectories usually are
modules, and, usually are ok.
The problem is, Julia has not yet committed to API stability, so there's no
versioning upstream, and if I invented one I would need to change the
SOVERSION for every new release. I'm not sure it's worth it. What do you
think?
It would be better to not make the libjulia.so symlink to start with.
I don't think so, as GUIs embedding Julia, like iJulia, may need to link to it.
I realize this may be an argument in favor of adding a SOVERSION. I guess I
should ask upstream about that.
Then, remove the rpath from binary(ies) and add to the package
an /etc/ld.so.conf/julia-%{_arch}.conf that on x86_64 would have
/usr/lib64/julia
as contents.
Not the most beautiful way (better to patch build), but using
chrpath -d after build should be ok to remove the rpath.
Actually the RPATH points to /usr/bin/../lib64/julia/, so I could remove the
symlink without problems for Julia itself.
I believe, to remove another rpmlint E: you could instead of
Requires: dSFMT-devel
have a dangling link, e.g.:
/usr/lib64/julia/lib.dSFMT.so - /usr/lib64/libdSFMT.so.2
or create it in %post (and remove in %postun) to avoid rpmlint
warnings. This way it wold also break on purpose if there is
a major bump of dSFMT.
Probably, but it sounds a bit hack (and I have to do the same for openlibm and
openspecfun). Isn't there
[Bug 1141822] Review Request: golang-googlecode-goauth2 - OAuth 2.0 for Go clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141822 Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |golang-googlecode-goauth2 |golang-googlecode-goauth2 - ||OAuth 2.0 for Go clients --- Comment #2 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-googlecode-goauth2/golang-googlecode-goauth2.spec SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-googlecode-goauth2/golang-googlecode-goauth2-0-0.1.hgafe77d958c70.fc21.src.rpm Description: OAuth 2.0 for Go clients $ rpmlint golang-googlecode-goauth2.spec /root/rpmbuild/SRPMS/golang-googlecode-goauth2-0-0.1.hgafe77d958c70.fc21.src.rpm /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/golang-googlecode-goauth2-devel-0-0.1.hgafe77d958c70.fc21.noarch.rpm golang-googlecode-goauth2.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: goauth2-afe77d958c70.tar.gz golang-googlecode-goauth2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) OAuth - Oath, Coauthor golang-googlecode-goauth2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US OAuth - Oath, Coauthor golang-googlecode-goauth2.src: W: invalid-url Source0: goauth2-afe77d958c70.tar.gz golang-googlecode-goauth2-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) OAuth - Oath, Coauthor golang-googlecode-goauth2-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US OAuth - Oath, Coauthor 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Initial commit by Adam Miller Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7588879 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141830] Review Request: golang-googlecode-uuid - Generates and inspects UUIDs based on RFC 4122 and DCE 1.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141830 Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |golang-googlecode-uuid |golang-googlecode-uuid - ||Generates and inspects ||UUIDs based on RFC 4122 and ||DCE 1.1 --- Comment #1 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-googlecode-uuid/golang-googlecode-uuid.spec SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-googlecode-uuid/golang-googlecode-uuid-0-0.1.hg7dda39b2e7d5.fc21.src.rpm Description: Generates and inspects UUIDs based on RFC 4122 and DCE 1.1 $ rpmlint /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/golang-googlecode-uuid-devel-0-0.1.hg7dda39b2e7d5.fc21.noarch.rpm /root/rpmbuild/SRPMS/golang-googlecode-uuid-0-0.1.hg7dda39b2e7d5.fc21.src.rpm golang-googlecode-uuid.spec golang-googlecode-uuid.src: W: invalid-url Source0: go-uuid-7dda39b2e7d5.tar.gz golang-googlecode-uuid.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: go-uuid-7dda39b2e7d5.tar.gz 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Initial commit by Adam Miller Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7588952 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1122940] Review Request: rubygem-capybara_minitest_spec - Capybara + MiniTest::Spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122940 Josef Stribny jstri...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Josef Stribny jstri...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-capybara_minitest_spec Short Description: Capybara + MiniTest::Spec Upstream URL: https://github.com/ordinaryzelig/capybara_minitest_spec Owners: jstribny Branches: f21 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135130] Review Request: rubygem-logstasher - Awesome rails logs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135130 --- Comment #4 from Josef Stribny jstri...@redhat.com --- There is 0.6.1 version already at rubygems.org, but archive seems broken and there are no big changes since 0.6.0. It's not broken, it contains just the necessary lib dir. Could you ask upstream to include the license in the released .gem file? And please update the specfile for 0.6.1, it seems that they won't ship spec anymore so if you prepare the spec for it, other future updates will be easier. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141841] Review Request: golang-googlecode-google-api-client - Go libraries for new style Google APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141841 Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |golang-googlecode-google-ap |golang-googlecode-google-ap |i-client|i-client - Go libraries for ||new style Google APIs --- Comment #2 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-googlecode-google-api-client/golang-googlecode-google-api-client.spec SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-googlecode-google-api-client/golang-googlecode-google-api-client-0-0.1.alpha.hge1c259484b49.fc21.src.rpm Description: Go libraries for new style Google APIs $ rpmlint /root/rpmbuild/SRPMS/golang-googlecode-google-api-client-0-0.1.alpha.hge1c259484b49.fc21.src.rpm /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/golang-googlecode-google-api-client-devel-0-0.1.alpha.hge1c259484b49.fc21.noarch.rpm golang-googlecode-google-api-client.spec golang-googlecode-google-api-client.src: W: invalid-url Source0: google-api-go-client-e1c259484b49.tar.gz golang-googlecode-google-api-client.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: google-api-go-client-e1c259484b49.tar.gz 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Initial commit by Adam Miller Koji: Unfortunatelly, this build depends on bz1141822. If needed, please build locally. On my machine (x86_64), it builds sucesfully. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1122939] Review Request: rubygem-jquery-ui-rails - jQuery UI packaged for the Rails asset pipeline
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122939 --- Comment #4 from Josef Stribny jstri...@redhat.com --- Updated to use %license: Spec URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/obs/rubygem-jquery-ui-rails.spec SRPM URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/obs/rubygem-jquery-ui-rails-5.0.0-2.fc22.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141861] Review Request: golang-github-golang-glog - Leveled execution logs for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141861 Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |golang-github-golang-glog |golang-github-golang-glog - ||Leveled execution logs for ||Go --- Comment #1 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-golang-glog/golang-github-golang-glog.spec SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-golang-glog/golang-github-golang-glog-0-0.0.1.gitd1c4472.fc21.src.rpm Description: Leveled execution logs for Go $ rpmlint /root/rpmbuild/SRPMS/golang-github-golang-glog-0-0.0.1.gitd1c4472.fc21.src.rpm /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/golang-github-golang-glog-devel-0-0.0.1.gitd1c4472.fc21.noarch.rpm golang-github-golang-glog.spec golang-github-golang-glog.src: W: invalid-license ASL2.0 golang-github-golang-glog-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US booleans - boo leans, boo-leans, Boolean golang-github-golang-glog-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vmodule - module, v module, modulate golang-github-golang-glog-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license ASL2.0 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Initial commit by Adam Miller Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7589282 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141864] Review Request: golang-github-stretchr-objx - Go package for dealing with maps, slices, JSON and other data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141864
Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
|golang-github-stretchr-objx |golang-github-stretchr-objx
||- Go package for dealing
||with maps, slices, JSON and
||other data
--- Comment #1 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com ---
Spec URL:
https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-stretchr-objx/golang-github-stretchr-objx.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-stretchr-objx/golang-github-stretchr-objx-0-0.1.gitcbeaeb1.fc21.src.rpm
Description: Objx provides the `objx.Map` type, which is a
`map[string]interface{}` that exposes a powerful `Get` method (among others)
that allows you to easily and quickly get access to data within the map,
without having to worry too much about type assertions, missing data, default
values etc.
$ rpmlint
/root/rpmbuild/SRPMS/golang-github-stretchr-objx-0-0.1.gitcbeaeb1.fc21.src.rpm
/root/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/golang-github-stretchr-objx-devel-0-0.1.gitcbeaeb1.fc21.noarch.rpm
golang-github-stretchr-objx.spec
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Initial commit by Adam Miller
Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7589343
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141872] Review Request: golang-github-stretchr-testify - Tools for testifying that your code will behave as you intend
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141872 Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |golang-github-stretchr-test |golang-github-stretchr-test |ify |ify - Tools for testifying ||that your code will behave ||as you intend --- Comment #1 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-stretchr-testify/golang-github-stretchr-testify.spec SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-stretchr-testify/golang-github-stretchr-testify-0-0.2.gitda775f0.fc21.src.rpm Description: Thou Shalt Write Tests $ rpmlint /root/rpmbuild/SRPMS/golang-github-stretchr-testify-0-0.2.gitda775f0.fc21.src.rpm /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/golang-github-stretchr-testify-devel-0-0.2.gitda775f0.fc21.noarch.rpm golang-github-stretchr-testify.spec 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Initial commit by Adam Miller Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7589443 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1122944] Review Request: rubygem-jquery-datatables-rails - jQuery datatables for rails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122944 --- Comment #2 from Josef Stribny jstri...@redhat.com --- Updated and fixed: Spec: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/obs/rubygem-jquery-datatables-rails.spec SRPM URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/obs/rubygem-jquery-datatables-rails-2.2.3-1.fc22.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1140577] Review Request: python-dill - Serialize all of Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140577 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1140577] Review Request: python-dill - Serialize all of Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140577 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-dill-0.2.1-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-dill-0.2.1-2.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141875] Review Request: golang-gopkg-yaml - Enables Go programs to comfortably encode and decode YAML values
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141875 Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |golang-gopkg-yaml |golang-gopkg-yaml - Enables ||Go programs to comfortably ||encode and decode YAML ||values --- Comment #1 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-gopkg-yaml/golang-gopkg-yaml.spec SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-gopkg-yaml/golang-gopkg-yaml-1-2.fc21.src.rpm Description: Enables Go programs to comfortably encode and decode YAML values $ rpmlint /root/rpmbuild/SRPMS/golang-gopkg-yaml-1-2.fc21.src.rpm /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/golang-gopkg-yaml-devel-1-2.fc21.noarch.rpm golang-gopkg-yaml.spec golang-gopkg-yaml-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US juju - jujube golang-gopkg-yaml-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libyaml - Libya golang-gopkg-yaml-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi - mulch, mufti golang-gopkg-yaml-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unmarshalling - marshaling 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Initial commit by Adam Miller Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7589570 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135130] Review Request: rubygem-logstasher - Awesome rails logs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135130 --- Comment #5 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz --- Oh, I see. :-) Asked upstream in https://github.com/shadabahmed/logstasher/issues/43 , they should definitely know about it. For Fedora, I think we can easily comply with the licensing guidelines even now. I'll prepare the new version. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141880] Review Request: golang-googlecode-gcfg - Gcfg reads INI-style configuration files into Go structs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141880 Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |golang-googlecode-gcfg |golang-googlecode-gcfg - ||Gcfg reads INI-style ||configuration files into Go ||structs --- Comment #4 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-googlecode-gcfg/golang-googlecode-gcfg.spec SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-googlecode-gcfg/golang-googlecode-gcfg-0.0.0-0.2.gitc2d3050044d0.fc21.src.rpm Description: Gcfg reads INI-style configuration files into Go structs $ rpmlint /root/rpmbuild/SRPMS/golang-googlecode-gcfg-0.0.0-0.2.gitc2d3050044d0.fc21.src.rpm /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/golang-googlecode-gcfg-devel-0.0.0-0.2.gitc2d3050044d0.fc21.x86_64.rpm golang-googlecode-gcfg.spec golang-googlecode-gcfg.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) structs - struts, instructs, destructs golang-googlecode-gcfg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US structs - struts, instructs, destructs golang-googlecode-gcfg-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) systemd - systems, system, system d golang-googlecode-gcfg-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systemd - systems, system, system d 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Initial work by Eric Paris Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7589692 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141887] Review Request: golang-github-kr-pretty - Provides pretty-printing for go values
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141887 Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |golang-github-kr-pretty |golang-github-kr-pretty - ||Provides pretty-printing ||for go values --- Comment #1 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-kr-pretty/golang-github-kr-pretty.spec SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-kr-pretty/golang-github-kr-pretty-0-0.1.git5feda8d.fc21.src.rpm Description: Package pretty provides pretty-printing for go values. This is useful during debugging, to avoid wrapping long output lines in the terminal. $ rpmlint /root/rpmbuild/SRPMS/golang-github-kr-pretty-0-0.1.git5feda8d.fc21.src.rpm /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/golang-github-kr-pretty-devel-0-0.1.git5feda8d.fc21.noarch.rpm golang-github-kr-pretty.spec 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Initial commit by Adam Miller Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7589792 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141892] Review Request: golang-github-influxdb-influxdb - Golang client libs for influxdb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141892 Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |golang-github-influxdb-infl |golang-github-influxdb-infl |uxdb|uxdb - Golang client libs ||for influxdb --- Comment #2 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-influxdb-influxdb/golang-github-influxdb-influxdb.spec SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-influxdb-influxdb/golang-github-influxdb-influxdb-0.8.0-0.1.rc4.git67f9869.fc21.src.rpm Description: InfluxDB is an open source distributed time series database with no external dependencies. It's useful for recording metrics, events, and performing analytics. $ rpmlint /root/rpmbuild/SRPMS/golang-github-influxdb-influxdb-0.8.0-0.1.rc4.git67f9869.fc21.src.rpm /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/golang-github-influxdb-influxdb-devel-0.8.0-0.1.rc4.git67f9869.fc21.noarch.rpm golang-github-influxdb-influxdb.spec golang-github-influxdb-influxdb.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libs - lobs, lib, lbs golang-github-influxdb-influxdb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US analytics - analytic, analytic s, paralytics golang-github-influxdb-influxdb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable - salable, callable, calculable golang-github-influxdb-influxdb-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libs - lobs, lib, lbs golang-github-influxdb-influxdb-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US analytics - analytic, analytic s, paralytics golang-github-influxdb-influxdb-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalable - salable, callable, calculable 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Initial commit by Adam Miller Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7589806 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1122941] Review Request: rubygem-font-awesome-rails - An asset gemification of the font-awesome icon font library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122941 --- Comment #2 from Josef Stribny jstri...@redhat.com --- * rpmlint about E: script-without-shebang -- Fixed * %license -- Fixed * Unneeded Requires / Provides for rubygem related packages -- I know about that, but there is only one require and it's not on RubyGem, therefor it's not generated * ! Latest version -- This is not possible if I want to reuse the files from already ready fontawesome-fonts package from fedora. It needs to have the same version. I can do updates only when fontawesome-fonts do them. Spec URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/obs/rubygem-font-awesome-rails.spec SRPM URL: http://data-strzibny.rhcloud.com/obs/rubygem-font-awesome-rails-4.1.0.0-2.fc22.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 191516] Review Request: perl-Pod-Readme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=191516 Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||de...@fateyev.com Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Denis Fateyev de...@fateyev.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-Pod-Readme New Branches: epel7 Owners: dfateyev -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135430] Review Request: python-XStatic-jquery-ui - jquery-ui (XStatic packaging standard)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135430 Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com --- Thank you for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-XStatic-jquery-ui Short Description: jquery-ui (XStatic packaging standard) Upstream URL: http://jqueryui.com/ Owners: mrunge Branches: f20 f21 el7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1140136] Review Request: python-tooz - Coordination library for distributed systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140136
Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com ---
It bundles jquery but it has a bundle exception from FPC.
According automated report below, the mock build failed due to missing
requirements on python3-retrying
but I fixed it today as a proven packager so it's due to the cache not yet
refreshed. Failing points below were manually tested by the reviewer.
Mock builds: ok
Installation: ok (for both variants)
Functioning: ok
Enabling tests is not practical since it requires memcache, zookeeper to be
present.
Since this package complies with Fedora packaging guidelines, please submit an
scm request.
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
= 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).
8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/haikel/1140136-python-tooz/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/lib/python3.4/site-packages,
/usr/lib/python3.4
[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 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]: 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 %doc.
[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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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
[Bug 458654] Review Request: perl-Text-Aligner - Text::Aligner Perl module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458654 Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jples...@redhat.com Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: perl-Text-Aligner New Branches: epel7 Owners: dfateyev InitialCC: I am current package owner. Denis Fateyev requested epel7 branch at BZ#1141587. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141896] Review Request: cadvisor - Analyzes resource usage and performance characteristics of running containers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141896
Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: cadvisor|Review Request: cadvisor -
||Analyzes resource usage and
||performance characteristics
||of running containers
--- Comment #2 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com ---
Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/cadvisor/cadvisor.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/cadvisor/cadvisor-0.3.0-0.2.git9d158c3d.fc21.src.rpm
Description: Analyzes resource usage and performance characteristics of running
containers
$ rpmlint /root/rpmbuild/SRPMS/cadvisor-0.3.0-0.2.git9d158c3d.fc21.src.rpm
/root/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/cadvisor-0.3.0-0.2.git9d158c3d.fc21.x86_64.rpm
/root/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/cadvisor-devel-0.3.0-0.2.git9d158c3d.fc21.x86_64.rpm
cadvisor.spec
cadvisor.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lmctfy
cadvisor.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcontainer - lib
container, lib-container, containerize
cadvisor.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US execdriver - exec
driver, exec-driver, cabdriver
cadvisor.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backends - back ends,
back-ends, backhands
cadvisor.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lmctfy's - olfactory's
cadvisor.src: W: invalid-license ASL2.0
cadvisor.src:114: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build export
GOPATH=$(pwd)/_build:%{buildroot}%{gopath}:%{gopath}
cadvisor.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lmctfy
cadvisor.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libcontainer - lib
container, lib-container, containerize
cadvisor.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US execdriver - exec
driver, exec-driver, cabdriver
cadvisor.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backends - back ends,
back-ends, backhands
cadvisor.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lmctfy's -
olfactory's
cadvisor.x86_64: W: invalid-license ASL2.0
cadvisor.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/cadvisor
cadvisor.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/cadvisor 0660L
cadvisor.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cadvisor
cadvisor-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lmctfy
cadvisor-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US execdriver -
exec driver, exec-driver, cabdriver
cadvisor-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backends - back
ends, back-ends, backhands
cadvisor-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lmctfy's -
olfactory's
cadvisor-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license ASL2.0
cadvisor.spec:114: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build export
GOPATH=$(pwd)/_build:%{buildroot}%{gopath}:%{gopath}
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 21 warnings.
Initial commit by Adam Miller, continued by Eric Paris
Koji: Unfortunatelly, this build depends on more bzs. If needed, please build
locally. On my machine (x86_64), it builds sucesfully.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1120882] Review Request: golang-googlecode-gogoprotobuf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120882 Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(walt...@redhat.co | |m) | --- Comment #6 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com --- Now I see, there is no release, thus no valid source address Pull request with changes from Vincent and rpmlint created. Eric: https://github.com/projectatomic/golang-googlecode-gogoprotobuf-package/pull/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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1121355] Review Request: phpMyAdmin4 - Handle the administration of MySQL over the World Wide Web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121355 Jared Smith jsmith.fed...@gmail.com 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1120882] Review Request: golang-googlecode-gogoprotobuf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120882
--- Comment #7 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com ---
Thanks Troy,
Source0:https://gogoprotobuf.googlecode.com/archive/%{commit}.tar.gz
applied.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1121355] Review Request: phpMyAdmin4 - Handle the administration of MySQL over the World Wide Web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121355
Jared Smith jsmith.fed...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.d
||e
Flags||needinfo?(redhat-bugzilla@l
||inuxnetz.de)
--- Comment #5 from Jared Smith jsmith.fed...@gmail.com ---
This package is looking pretty good, but isn't quite ready for approval. In
particular, please review the sources for code under other licenses, and use
the %global macro in your spec file instead of %define, unless there is a
specific reason not to.
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 %doc.
Note: Cannot find MIT-LICENSE.txt in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB)
or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 1525760 bytes in 66 files.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
= 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), GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address),
LGPL (v3 or later), *No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like), Unknown or
generated.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Building for EPEL 5
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Building for EPEL 5
[-]: 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
[Bug 1142276] New: Review Request: python-kgb - Utilities for spying on function calls in unit tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142276 Bug ID: 1142276 Summary: Review Request: python-kgb - Utilities for spying on function calls in unit tests Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sgall...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/python-kgb/python-kgb-0.1.spec SRPM URL: https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/python-kgb/python-kgb-0.5.1-0.fc21.1.src.rpm Description: Spies intercept and record calls to functions. They can report on how many times a function was called and with what arguments. They can allow the function call to go through as normal, to block it, or to reroute it to another function. Fedora Account System Username: sgallagh Koji Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7590764 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142276] Review Request: python-kgb - Utilities for spying on function calls in unit tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142276 Robert Kuska rku...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||rku...@redhat.com Docs Contact||rku...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Robert Kuska rku...@redhat.com --- I will take this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142276] Review Request: python-kgb - Utilities for spying on function calls in unit tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142276 Robert Kuska rku...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Docs Contact|rku...@redhat.com | Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rku...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1140136] Review Request: python-tooz - Coordination library for distributed systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140136 Nejc Saje ns...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Nejc Saje ns...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-tooz Short Description: Coordination library for distributed systems Upstream URL: https://tooz.readthedocs.org Owners: nsaje Branches: f20 f21 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1127569] Review Request: libstrophe - A simple, lightweight C library for writing XMPP clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127569 Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu Docs Contact||rdie...@math.unl.edu 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1125952] Review Request: artikulate - Improve your pronunciation by listening to native speakers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125952 --- Comment #5 from Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu --- Boo, working on kde update and noticed I'd forgotten/lost this review, will try to pick things up this week (and help with review swap) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 736717] Review Request: lcmaps - Grid (X.509) and VOMS credentials to local account mapping
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736717 Dennis van Dok denni...@nikhef.nl changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #58 from Dennis van Dok denni...@nikhef.nl --- Package Change Request == Package Name: lcmaps New Branches: epel7 Owners: dennisvd I would like lcmaps to go to EPEL7 as well. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141097] Review Request: python-glance-store - OpenStack image store library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141097 Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sgall...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sgall...@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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1040517] Review Request: julia - High-level, high-performance dynamic language for technical computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #68 from Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com
---
You probably saw I posted to devel@ earlier today about issues
with rpath/runpath. I was waiting for some comment on that
before replying, but none so far...
1) I believe none of the installed Makefile files are required
(or functional):
[...]
So let's keep installing the perf suite for now, only removing Makefiles.
2) Is it really required to install /usr/share/julia/test ?
[...]
Ah, I've added a series of %exclude for -doc.
4) I believe there is something wrong with the documentation. It
should install processed documentation. I try to build it
manually, by switching to the doc subdir I see this:
[...]
So, I believe just the hack to create juliadoc/juliadoc/__init__.py is
not
enough.
Yes, I've filed this in the same upstream issue. I'd say for now let's
install the .rst files, which are readable if not pretty, and wait for
upstream to make it possible to install HTML files properly.
I believe it can be fixed in the current rpm, probably a patch actually
creating an usable juliadoc/juliadoc/__init__.py or whatever is
missing from the tarball.
Yes, copying these files from Julia git seems to work, but then I need to
carry the patch and move files around by hand. Is it really worth it? I'd
prefer fixing this upstream directly, I've filed an issue:
https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/8378
I asked it because I know it should be easy, and would greatly increase
the quality of the package, and/or, it could detect problems in the
documentation itself. While waiting for upstream, please make a
simple patch to get html documentation built. You will make the
reviewer a lot happier :)
5) It has been commented before, but it really would be better to
have a versioned .so under %_libdir; subdirectories usually are
modules, and, usually are ok.
The problem is, Julia has not yet committed to API stability, so there's
no
versioning upstream, and if I invented one I would need to change the
SOVERSION for every new release. I'm not sure it's worth it. What do you
think?
It would be better to not make the libjulia.so symlink to start with.
I don't think so, as GUIs embedding Julia, like iJulia, may need to link to
it. I realize this may be an argument in favor of adding a SOVERSION. I
guess I should ask upstream about that.
Then, remove the rpath from binary(ies) and add to the package
an /etc/ld.so.conf/julia-%{_arch}.conf that on x86_64 would have
/usr/lib64/julia
as contents.
Not the most beautiful way (better to patch build), but using
chrpath -d after build should be ok to remove the rpath.
Actually the RPATH points to /usr/bin/../lib64/julia/, so I could remove the
symlink without problems for Julia itself.
I believe, to remove another rpmlint E: you could instead of
Requires: dSFMT-devel
have a dangling link, e.g.:
/usr/lib64/julia/lib.dSFMT.so - /usr/lib64/libdSFMT.so.2
or create it in %post (and remove in %postun) to avoid rpmlint
warnings. This way it wold also break on purpose if there is
a major bump of dSFMT.
Probably, but it sounds a bit hack (and I have to do the same for openlibm
and openspecfun). Isn't there any way of setting Requires(libdSMFT.so.2)?
AFAIK what should work is to check what rpm -q --requires dSFMT-devel
outputs and add that, but it would change from arch to arch, and is an
ugly and fragile hack, e.g. on x86_64:
Requires: libdSFMT.so.2.2()(64bit)
Anyway, in case it may be helpful, this is how I avoid rpmlint
warnings on dangling symlinks in sagemath:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/sagemath.git/tree/sagemath.spec#n1102
you could write something like this in %post:
ln -sf /usr/lib64/libdSFMT.so.2 /usr/lib64/julia/libdSFMT.so
Another issue is that you could split the files installed under
/usr/share/julia in a noarch package, unless they are not noarch,
but then they are in the wrong place :) Say, a new julia-data
package or package similar name.
Done.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142276] Review Request: python-kgb - Utilities for spying on function calls in unit tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142276 Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||karlthe...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- @Robert: sorry, we swapped review on the list with Stephen, without noticing you take it. If you don't mind, I'll review it anyway and you could either continue it or let me finish it. Few points: * no need to clean the buildroot in %install * you should add AUTHORS NEWS and README.md in %doc * Not a blocker, but you should add Christian to add a license file :) Except that, it should be good -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141877] Review Request: nodejs-es5-shim - ECMAScript 5 compatibility shims for legacy JavaScript engines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141877 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-es5-shim Short Description: ECMAScript 5 compatibility shims for legacy JavaScript engines Upstream URL: https://npmjs.org/package/es5-shim Owners: ralph Branches: f21,f20,f19,epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141494] Review Request: python-flask-whooshalchemy - Whoosh extension to Flask/SQLAlchemy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141494
Jared Smith jsmith.fed...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Jared Smith jsmith.fed...@gmail.com ---
I am not yet a sponsor, so I can't sponsor you. I can, however, review your
package. It seems to be in pretty good shape, except for the duplicated file.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/Flask_WhooshAlchemy-0.56-py2.7.egg-info
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 6 files.
[!]: 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 %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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.
[ ]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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 try to
[Bug 1141097] Review Request: python-glance-store - OpenStack image store library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141097
Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com ---
tl;dr: Review Passes
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- The library provides a test suite that fails when run. This should be
resolved with upstream and then added to the package.
= 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).
2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/dev/shm/1141097-python-glance-store/licensecheck.txt
[X]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses
[X]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses
[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 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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:
[X]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[X]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Package functions as described.
[X]: Latest version is packaged.
[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 try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources
[Bug 1120867] Review Request: golang-github-rcrowley-go-metrics - Go port of Coda Hales Metrics library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120867 Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |golang-github-rcrowley-go-m |golang-github-rcrowley-go-m |etrics-package |etrics - Go port of Coda ||Hales Metrics library --- Comment #3 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-rcrowley-go-metrics/golang-github-rcrowley-go-metrics.spec SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-rcrowley-go-metrics/golang-github-rcrowley-go-metrics-0-0.0.git3be59ce.fc21.src.rpm Description: Go port of Coda Hales Metrics library $ rpmlint /root/rpmbuild/SRPMS/golang-github-rcrowley-go-metrics-0-0.0.git3be59ce.fc21.src.rpm /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/golang-github-rcrowley-go-metrics-devel-0-0.0.git3be59ce.fc21.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Initial commit by Colin Walters Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7591805 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1120882] Review Request: golang-googlecode-gogoprotobuf - A fork of goprotobuf with several extra features
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120882 Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |golang-googlecode-gogoproto |golang-googlecode-gogoproto |buf |buf - A fork of goprotobuf ||with several extra features --- Comment #8 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-googlecode-gogoprotobuf/golang-googlecode-gogoprotobuf.spec SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-googlecode-gogoprotobuf/golang-googlecode-gogoprotobuf-0-0.7.gitd228c1a.fc21.src.rpm Description: A fork of goprotobuf with several extra features $ rpmlint /root/rpmbuild/SRPMS/golang-googlecode-gogoprotobuf-0-0.7.gitd228c1a.fc21.src.rpm /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/golang-googlecode-gogoprotobuf-0-0.7.gitd228c1a.fc21.x86_64.rpm /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/golang-googlecode-gogoprotobuf-devel-0-0.7.gitd228c1a.fc21.x86_64.rpm golang-googlecode-gogoprotobuf.spec golang-googlecode-gogoprotobuf.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) goprotobuf - protoplasm golang-googlecode-gogoprotobuf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US goprotobuf - protoplasm golang-googlecode-gogoprotobuf.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) goprotobuf - protoplasm golang-googlecode-gogoprotobuf.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US goprotobuf - protoplasm golang-googlecode-gogoprotobuf.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/protoc-gen-gogo golang-googlecode-gogoprotobuf.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/protoc-gen-gogo golang-googlecode-gogoprotobuf.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary protoc-gen-gogo golang-googlecode-gogoprotobuf-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) goprotobuf - protoplasm golang-googlecode-gogoprotobuf-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US goprotobuf - protoplasm 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. Initial commit by Colin Walters Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7592027 Package was not building on noarch architecture in koji, removed noarch from ExclusiveArch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1121355] Review Request: phpMyAdmin4 - Handle the administration of MySQL over the World Wide Web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121355 --- Comment #6 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de --- (In reply to Jared Smith from comment #5) This package is looking pretty good, but isn't quite ready for approval. In particular, please review the sources for code under other licenses, and use the %global macro in your spec file instead of %define, unless there is a specific reason not to. Eh, yes. The %define rather %global thing is due to history, no specific reason. I will change this. Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses is too early because the spec file removes some files and directories to unbundle some software. How did you do the license check exactly? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1120857] Review Request: golang-github-mreiferson-go-httpclient - A Go HTTP client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120857
Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
|golang-github-mreiferson-go |golang-github-mreiferson-go
|-httpclient |-httpclient - A Go HTTP
||client library
--- Comment #6 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com ---
Spec URL:
https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-mreiferson-go-httpclient/golang-github-mreiferson-go-httpclient.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-mreiferson-go-httpclient/golang-github-mreiferson-go-httpclient-0-0.0.gitc121dfe.fc21.src.rpm
Description: A Go HTTP client library
$ rpmlint
/root/rpmbuild/SRPMS/golang-github-mreiferson-go-httpclient-0-0.0.gitc121dfe.fc21.src.rpm
/root/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/golang-github-mreiferson-go-httpclient-devel-0-0.0.gitc121dfe.fc21.noarch.rpm
golang-github-mreiferson-go-httpclient.spec
golang-github-mreiferson-go-httpclient.src: W: spelling-error %description -l
en_US librarys - library, library's, library s
golang-github-mreiferson-go-httpclient.src:38: W: macro-in-comment %check
golang-github-mreiferson-go-httpclient.src:39: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
golang-github-mreiferson-go-httpclient.src:39: W: macro-in-comment %{gopath}
golang-github-mreiferson-go-httpclient.src:39: W: macro-in-comment %{gopath}
golang-github-mreiferson-go-httpclient.src:39: W: macro-in-comment
%{import_path}
golang-github-mreiferson-go-httpclient.spec:38: W: macro-in-comment %check
golang-github-mreiferson-go-httpclient.spec:39: W: macro-in-comment
%{buildroot}
golang-github-mreiferson-go-httpclient.spec:39: W: macro-in-comment %{gopath}
golang-github-mreiferson-go-httpclient.spec:39: W: macro-in-comment %{gopath}
golang-github-mreiferson-go-httpclient.spec:39: W: macro-in-comment
%{import_path}
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.
Initial commit by Colin Walters
Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7592220
%check commented so we can enable the test in future, now it fails to check in
koji.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142276] Review Request: python-kgb - Utilities for spying on function calls in unit tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142276 --- Comment #3 from Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/python-kgb/python-kgb-0.2.spec SRPM URL: https://sgallagh.fedorapeople.org/packagereview/python-kgb/python-kgb-0.5.1-0.fc21.2.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 603629] Review Request: cf-sorts-mill-goudy-fonts - Goudy Oldstyle and Italic fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=603629 Parag pnem...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: cf-sorts-mill-goudy-fonts New Branches: el6 epel7 Owners: pnemade -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 603631] Review Request: moyogo-molengo-fonts - A Latin typeface for documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=603631 Parag pnem...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: moyogo-molengo-fonts New Branches: el6 epel7 Owners: pnemade -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141926] Review Request: python-rfc3986 - Validating URI References per RFC 3986
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141926 Alan Pevec ape...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Alan Pevec ape...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: python-rfc3986 Short Description: Validating URI References per RFC 3986 Upstream URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/rfc3986 Owners: apevec Branches: f20 f21 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141926] Review Request: python-rfc3986 - Validating URI References per RFC 3986
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141926 Alan Pevec ape...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ape...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Alan Pevec ape...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Haïkel Guémar from comment #1) Upstream website seems down, this may be temporary. It's whatever was supplied by the upstream author in setup.py: url='https://rfc3986.rtfd.org', rtfd.org is actually rfc3986.readthedocs.org and certificate does not match. But even http://rfc3986.readthedocs.org/ is not there yet, so I've changed URL to module's pypi page. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142398] New: Review Request: golang-github-go-ini - INI parsing library for Go (golang)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142398 Bug ID: 1142398 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-go-ini - INI parsing library for Go (golang) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jchal...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-go-ini/golang-github-go-ini.spec SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-go-ini/golang-github-go-ini-0.0.0-0.1.gita98ad7e.fc21.src.rpm Description: INI parsing library for Go (golang) Fedora Account System Username: jchaloup $ rpmlint /root/rpmbuild/SRPMS/golang-github-go-ini-0.0.0-0.1.gita98ad7e.fc21.src.rpm /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/golang-github-go-ini-devel-0.0.0-0.1.gita98ad7e.fc21.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Initial commit by Eric Paris Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7592900 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142399] New: Review Request: golang-github-goamz - An Amazon Library for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142399 Bug ID: 1142399 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-goamz - An Amazon Library for Go Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jchal...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-goamz/golang-github-goamz.spec SRPM URL: https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-goamz/golang-github-goamz-0.0.0-0.1.git9cad7da.fc21.src.rpm Description: An Amazon Library for Go Fedora Account System Username: jchaloup $ rpmlint /root/rpmbuild/SRPMS/golang-github-goamz-0.0.0-0.1.git9cad7da.fc21.src.rpm /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/golang-github-goamz-devel-0.0.0-0.1.git9cad7da.fc21.x86_64.rpm golang-github-goamz.spec golang-github-goamz.src: W: invalid-license LGPL3+ golang-github-goamz-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) systemd - systems, system, system d golang-github-goamz-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US systemd - systems, system, system d golang-github-goamz-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL3+ 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Initial commit by Eric Paris Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7592787 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142398] Review Request: golang-github-go-ini - INI parsing library for Go (golang)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142398 --- Comment #1 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com --- with golang-github-go-ini.spec as well: rpmlint /root/rpmbuild/SRPMS/golang-github-go-ini-0.0.0-0.1.gita98ad7e.fc21.src.rpm /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/golang-github-go-ini-devel-0.0.0-0.1.gita98ad7e.fc21.x86_64.rpm golang-github-go-ini.spec 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1092828] Review Request: turses - A Twitter client for the console
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1092828 --- Comment #10 from Rino Rondan villadalm...@gmail.com --- what i need to do with manual and apache2 license ? just add the type of license in spec ? And about manual do i need to create a manual ? https://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/turses-0.2.22-4.fc20.src.rpm https://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/turses.spec Regards -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142399] Review Request: golang-github-goamz - An Amazon Library for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142399 Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1122176 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122176 [Bug 1122176] Review Request: kubernetes - Kubernetes container management -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142398] Review Request: golang-github-go-ini - INI parsing library for Go (golang)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142398 Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1122176 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122176 [Bug 1122176] Review Request: kubernetes - Kubernetes container management -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1122176] Review Request: kubernetes - Kubernetes container management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122176 Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1142398, 1142399 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142398 [Bug 1142398] Review Request: golang-github-go-ini - INI parsing library for Go (golang) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142399 [Bug 1142399] Review Request: golang-github-goamz - An Amazon Library for Go -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142407] New: Review Request: drpm - deltarpm manipulation library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142407 Bug ID: 1142407 Summary: Review Request: drpm - deltarpm manipulation library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ptob...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://www.stud.fit.vutbr.cz/~xtobia01/drpm.spec SRPM URL: http://www.stud.fit.vutbr.cz/~xtobia01/drpm-0.1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Currently, the drpm package provides a small library allowing one to fetch various info from deltarpm packages. The long-term aim of the project is to replace the deltarpm suite completely by providing a similar, backwards-compatible deltarpm-making and -applying functionality as a part of the API, as well as in form of stand-alone utilities. Fedora Account System Username: ptobias -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1134840] Review Request: python3-script - Help for writing shell scripts in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134840 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|anto.tra...@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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142422] New: Review Request: unifrakturmaguntia-fonts - UnifrakturMaguntia font by Peter Wiegel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142422 Bug ID: 1142422 Summary: Review Request: unifrakturmaguntia-fonts - UnifrakturMaguntia font by Peter Wiegel Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: juj...@jujens.eu QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SPECS/unifrakturmaguntia-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SRPMS/unifrakturmaguntia-fonts-2014-0.1.20140706.fc20.src.rpm Description: UnifrakturMaguntia is based on Peter Wiegel’s font Berthold Mainzer Fraktur. The main differences from Peter Wiegel’s font are the following: - UnifrakturMaguntia uses OpenType for displaying the font’s ligatures. - UnifrakturMaguntia is suitable for @font-face embedding on the internet. It has a permissive license, the OFL, that explicitly allows font embedding. - G. Ansmann has carefully redrawn all glyphs and significantly expanded the font. Fedora Account System Username: jujens -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142422] Review Request: unifrakturmaguntia-fonts - UnifrakturMaguntia font by Peter Wiegel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142422 Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i18n-bugs@lists.fedoraproje ||ct.org Blocks||1070946 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070946 [Bug 1070946] Review Request: python-SimpleCV - Open source framework for building computer vision applications -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1070946] Review Request: python-SimpleCV - Open source framework for building computer vision applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070946 Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1142422 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142422 [Bug 1142422] Review Request: unifrakturmaguntia-fonts - UnifrakturMaguntia font by Peter Wiegel -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142407] Review Request: drpm - deltarpm manipulation library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142407 Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||d...@der-flo.net Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@der-flo.net Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net --- hi! At the moment there are some Issues: [ ] Your package isn't building. drpm_compstrm.c:29:18: fatal error: lzma.h: No such file or directory [ ] %changelog is missing in the spec-file [ ] Please preserve timestamps while using cp Cheers, Florian -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1070946] Review Request: python-SimpleCV - Open source framework for building computer vision applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070946 Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1142430 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142430 [Bug 1142430] Review Request: vt323-fonts - VT323 font by Peter Hull -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142430] Review Request: vt323-fonts - VT323 font by Peter Hull
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142430 Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i18n-bugs@lists.fedoraproje ||ct.org Blocks||1070946 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070946 [Bug 1070946] Review Request: python-SimpleCV - Open source framework for building computer vision applications -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142407] Review Request: drpm - deltarpm manipulation library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142407 --- Comment #2 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net --- For information about the error while building take a look at: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7594011 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1140577] Review Request: python-dill - Serialize all of Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140577 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- python-dill-0.2.1-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1138980] Review Request: perl-Gtk2-AppIndicator - Perl extension for libappindicator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138980 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-Gtk2-AppIndicator-0.15-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1138321] Review Request: reeniebeanie-fonts - Reenie Beanie fonts by James Grieshaber
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138321 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- reeniebeanie-fonts-1.000-0.4.20140913hg.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135933] Review Request: ghc-monads-tf - Monad classes using type families
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135933 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-monads-tf-0.1.0.2-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1138330] Review Request: shadowsintolight-fonts - Shadows Into Light fonts by Kimberly Geswein
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138330 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- shadowsintolight-fonts-1.000-0.3.20140913hg.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1137018] Review Request: labelleaurore-fonts -La Belle Aurore fonts by Kimberly Geswein
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1137018 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- labelleaurore-fonts-1.001-0.2.20140913hg.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1137021] Review Request: monofett-fonts - Monofett font released by Vernon Adams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1137021 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- monofett-fonts-1.000-0.3.20140913hg.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142437] New: Review Request: wallpoet-fonts - Wallpoet font by Lars Berggren
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142437 Bug ID: 1142437 Summary: Review Request: wallpoet-fonts - Wallpoet font by Lars Berggren Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: juj...@jujens.eu QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SPECS/wallpoet-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SRPMS/wallpoet-fonts-1.000-0.1.20140916hg.fc20.src.rpm Description: Wallpoet is inspired by the often political, short, sometimes provocative, sometimes funny or both, messages found on city walls, sprayed by some anonymous agent. Words, images or both! The idea behind the font is making a font with a bit of punch, but still easy to use for template graffiti. Print, cut spray - being the key concept. That's why it has no curves and off course is a stencil font. With the font, Lars wants to pay respect to the urban guerilla scene, which has inspired him so often with it's total disrespect for the traditional and ingenious ability to break out of the traditional box. Fedora Account System Username: jujens -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142437] Review Request: wallpoet-fonts - Wallpoet font by Lars Berggren
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142437 Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i18n-bugs@lists.fedoraproje ||ct.org Blocks||1070946 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070946 [Bug 1070946] Review Request: python-SimpleCV - Open source framework for building computer vision applications -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1070946] Review Request: python-SimpleCV - Open source framework for building computer vision applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070946 Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1142437 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142437 [Bug 1142437] Review Request: wallpoet-fonts - Wallpoet font by Lars Berggren -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142446] New: Review Request: python-fedimg - automatic Fedora Cloud image uploads to cloud providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142446 Bug ID: 1142446 Summary: Review Request: python-fedimg - automatic Fedora Cloud image uploads to cloud providers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: d...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://oddshocks.fedorapeople.org/packages/specs/python-fedimg.spec SRPM URL: https://oddshocks.fedorapeople.org/packages/srpms/python-fedimg-0.2.5-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Fedimg is a service that listens to the Fedmsg bus and uploads completed Fedora Cloud image builds to cloud providers. This version will upload images to Amazon EC2 as AMIs. This will be the initial package for Fedora. After the package is installed, /etc/fedimg.cfg must be manually configured with AWS account info and paths to public and private keys. I have tested this on a staging machine by manually installing the RPM, and it seems to work properly. This is my first package review submission, so please be critical of anything that can/should be improved. Fedora Account System Username: oddshocks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142445] New: Review Request: wireone-fonts - Wire One font by Alexei Vanyashin and Gayaneh Bagdasaryan
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142445 Bug ID: 1142445 Summary: Review Request: wireone-fonts - Wire One font by Alexei Vanyashin and Gayaneh Bagdasaryan Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: juj...@jujens.eu QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SPECS/wireone-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SRPMS/wireone-fonts-1.000-0.1.20140916hg.fc20.src.rpm Description: Wire is a condensed monoline sans. Its modular-based characters are flavored with a sense of art nouveau. Nearly hairline thickness suggests usage for body text above 12px. While at display sizes it reveals its tiny dot terminals to create a sharp mood in headlines. For web typesetting it is recommended to adjust letter-spacing for sizes below 30px to 0.033em and up. For 12 px we recommend the value of 0.085em. Designed by Alexei Vanyashin, Gayaneh Bagdasaryan. Fedora Account System Username: jujens -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142445] Review Request: wireone-fonts - Wire One font by Alexei Vanyashin and Gayaneh Bagdasaryan
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142445 Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i18n-bugs@lists.fedoraproje ||ct.org Blocks||1070946 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070946 [Bug 1070946] Review Request: python-SimpleCV - Open source framework for building computer vision applications -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1070946] Review Request: python-SimpleCV - Open source framework for building computer vision applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070946 Julien Enselme juj...@jujens.eu changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1142445 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142445 [Bug 1142445] Review Request: wireone-fonts - Wire One font by Alexei Vanyashin and Gayaneh Bagdasaryan -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142446] Review Request: python-fedimg - automatic Fedora Cloud image uploads to cloud providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142446 David Gay d...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|medium |high Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142446] Review Request: python-fedimg - automatic Fedora Cloud image uploads to cloud providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142446 David Gay d...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #1 from David Gay d...@redhat.com --- Removed the need for a sponsor, since apparently this isn't required if I already maintain or co-maintain a package, which I do. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141389] Review Request: perl-DBIx-Connector - Fast, safe DBI connection and transaction management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141389 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-DBIx-Connector-0.53-2.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-DBIx-Connector-0.53-2.el7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141389] Review Request: perl-DBIx-Connector - Fast, safe DBI connection and transaction management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141389 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141389] Review Request: perl-DBIx-Connector - Fast, safe DBI connection and transaction management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141389 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-DBIx-Connector-0.53-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-DBIx-Connector-0.53-2.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141389] Review Request: perl-DBIx-Connector - Fast, safe DBI connection and transaction management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141389 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-DBIx-Connector-0.53-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-DBIx-Connector-0.53-2.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141389] Review Request: perl-DBIx-Connector - Fast, safe DBI connection and transaction management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141389 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- perl-DBIx-Connector-0.53-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-DBIx-Connector-0.53-2.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142446] Review Request: python-fedimg - automatic Fedora Cloud image uploads to cloud providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142446 Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rb...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com --- Scratch build succeeds: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7595210 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142446] Review Request: python-fedimg - automatic Fedora Cloud image uploads to cloud providers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142446
Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rb...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean rb...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Please change $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to just %{buildroot}
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
- Please add '-p' to your %{__cp} lines so that the timestamps of files are
preserved.
- Lastly, the chmod a+x does get rpmlint to be quiet, it does the opposite of
what should be done. The files that go into
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fedimg/*.py are not actually supposed to be
executable scripts. They are library files. rpmlint was complaining because
they had a shebang at the top (like executables do) but that they didn't have
the executable bit. You gave them the executable bit to silence rpmlint, but
really, they should neither have the +x bit nor should they have a shebang --
they're not programs that users go and directly run like 'ls' or
'hovercraft'.
The solution here is to use 'sed' to remove the shebang in place of doing
that chmod.
- When you have made the above changes, you should bump the 'Release' field of
your spec file from 1 to 2, you should add a new changelog entry at the
bottom of your .spec file indicating that you made changes X, Y and Z due to
the fedora package review, and then lastly you should re-post new links to
the .spec and .srpm file here in the ticket to let people know it's up for
another look. Note that the srpm will have a new file name due to the
'Release' field bump.
Would be Nice to Have
=
- There are no license headers in your files indicating they are AGPL, there is
no copyright statement, and there is no indication of the author. You can
probably put some boilerplate on all of them with a quick script for the next
release.
= 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. 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/threebean/1142446-python-fedimg/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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 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: 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 %doc.
[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 does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall
