[Bug 1293049] Review Request: libpasastro - Pascal interface for standard astronomy libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293049

Mattia Verga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||115 (Astronomy-SIG)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=115
[Bug 115] Astronomy SIG - 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 1293058] New: Review Request: nodejs-fs2 - Node.js fs (file system package) extensions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293058

Bug ID: 1293058
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-fs2 - Node.js fs (file system
package) extensions
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: piotr1...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-fs2.spec
SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-fs2-0.2.3-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description: Node.js fs (file system package) extensions
Fedora Account System Username: piotrp

-- 
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 1292429] Review Request: nodejs-memoizee - Memoize/cache function results

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292429

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1293058




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293058
[Bug 1293058] Review Request: nodejs-fs2 - Node.js fs (file system package)
extensions
-- 
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 1270375] Review Request: nacl-arm-newlib - C library intended for use on embedded systems

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270375
Bug 1270375 depends on bug 1270364, which changed state.

Bug 1270364 Summary: Review Request: nacl-arm-binutils - A GNU collection of 
binary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270364

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1270368] Review Request: nacl-arm-gcc - Various compilers (C, C++) for nacl (ARM)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270368
Bug 1270368 depends on bug 1270364, which changed state.

Bug 1270364 Summary: Review Request: nacl-arm-binutils - A GNU collection of 
binary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270364

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1270405] Review Request: native_client - Google Native Client Toolchain

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270405
Bug 1270405 depends on bug 1270364, which changed state.

Bug 1270364 Summary: Review Request: nacl-arm-binutils - A GNU collection of 
binary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270364

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1270364] Review Request: nacl-arm-binutils - A GNU collection of binary utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270364

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2015-12-19 13:27:50



-- 
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 1270364] Review Request: nacl-arm-binutils - A GNU collection of binary utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270364



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
nacl-arm-binutils-2.25.2-2.gitcde986c.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23
stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.

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

[Bug 1270322] Review Request: chromium - A WebKit (Blink) powered web browser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270322
Bug 1270322 depends on bug 1270364, which changed state.

Bug 1270364 Summary: Review Request: nacl-arm-binutils - A GNU collection of 
binary utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270364

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1285515] Review Request: php-symfony-polyfill - Symfony polyfills backporting features to lower PHP versions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285515

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2015-12-19 13:27:40



-- 
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 1293053] New: Review Request: nodejs-next - Functions that extend and complement Node.js API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293053

Bug ID: 1293053
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-next - Functions that extend
and complement Node.js API
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: piotr1...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-next.spec
SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-next-0.4.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Functions that extend and complement Node.js API
Fedora Account System Username: piotrp

-- 
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 1218410] Review Request: python-APSscheduler - In-process task scheduler with Cron-like capabilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218410

Paul Belanger  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1218410] Review Request: python-APSscheduler - In-process task scheduler with Cron-like capabilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218410

Paul Belanger  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Component|Package Review  |python-APScheduler
  Flags|fedora-review+  |



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1293049] New: Review Request: libpasastro - Pascal interface for standard astronomy libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293049

Bug ID: 1293049
   Summary: Review Request: libpasastro - Pascal interface for
standard astronomy libraries
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: mattia.ve...@tiscali.it
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://www.coolbits.it/fedora/libpasastro.spec
SRPM URL:
http://www.coolbits.it/fedora/libpasastro-1.0-2.20151219svn.fc23.src.rpm
Description: libpasastro provides shared libraries to interface Pascal programs
with standard astronomy libraries. It provides common code to programs like
Skychart and Virtual Planets Atlas.
Fedora Account System Username: mattia

-- 
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 1292413] Review Request: nodejs-es6-iterator - Iterator abstraction based on ES6 specification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292413

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-es6-iterator-2.0.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update nodejs-es6-iterator'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-96e4283140

-- 
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 1292416] Review Request: nodejs-es5-ext - ECMAScript 5 extensions and ES6 shims

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292416

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-es5-ext-0.10.10-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update nodejs-es5-ext'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-2a4d51ed49

-- 
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 1292412] Review Request: nodejs-es6-symbol - ECMAScript 6 Symbol polyfill

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292412

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-es6-symbol-3.0.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update nodejs-es6-symbol'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-7f33ee13a1

-- 
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 1293043] New: Review Request: python-epac - EPAC is a machine learning workflow builder.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293043

Bug ID: 1293043
   Summary: Review Request: python-epac - EPAC is a machine
learning workflow builder.
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ilya.grad...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://github.com/neurofedora/python-epac/raw/master/python-epac.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/neurofedora/python-epac/raw/master/python-epac-0.0.1-1.git45e63f2.fc23.src.rpm
Description: Embarrassingly Parallel Array Computing: EPAC is a machine
learning workflow builder. 
Fedora Account System Username: ilgrad

-- 
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 1293058] Review Request: nodejs-fs2 - Node.js fs (file system package) extensions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293058

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews)
 Depends On||1292429




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806
[Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292429
[Bug 1292429] Review Request: nodejs-memoizee - Memoize/cache function
results
-- 
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 1293058] Review Request: nodejs-fs2 - Node.js fs (file system package) extensions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293058

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1044425




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1044425
[Bug 1044425] nodejs-minimatch-3.0.0 is available
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1292429] Review Request: nodejs-memoizee - Memoize/cache function results

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292429

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|piotr1...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
APPROVED.

We will probably need to add some BR's once we get tad in.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 56 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1292429-nodejs-memoizee/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: 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.
[!]: %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 can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working 

[Bug 1285515] Review Request: php-symfony-polyfill - Symfony polyfills backporting features to lower PHP versions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285515



--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-paragonie-random-compat-1.1.0-2.fc23, php-symfony-polyfill-1.0.0-3.fc23 has
been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist,
please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1285514] Review Request: php-paragonie-random-compat - PHP 5.x polyfill for random_bytes() and random_int() from PHP 7

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285514



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-paragonie-random-compat-1.1.0-2.fc23, php-symfony-polyfill-1.0.0-3.fc23 has
been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist,
please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1285514] Review Request: php-paragonie-random-compat - PHP 5.x polyfill for random_bytes() and random_int() from PHP 7

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285514

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2015-12-06 09:34:35 |2015-12-19 13:27:44



-- 
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 1285515] Review Request: php-symfony-polyfill - Symfony polyfills backporting features to lower PHP versions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285515
Bug 1285515 depends on bug 1285514, which changed state.

Bug 1285514 Summary: Review Request: php-paragonie-random-compat - PHP 5.x 
polyfill for random_bytes() and random_int() from PHP 7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285514

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1293043] Review Request: python-epac - EPAC is a machine learning workflow builder.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293043

Ilya Gradina  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1276941 (fedora-neuro)
  Alias||python-epac




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276941
[Bug 1276941] Fedora NeuroImaging and NeuroScience tracking bug
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1293043] Review Request: python-epac - EPAC is a machine learning workflow builder.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293043

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review-



--- Comment #1 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
Missing requires, missing buildrequires, no python3 package. Binary should
point to py3 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 1293047] Review Request: nodejs-deferred - Modular and fast Promises implementation for JavaScript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293047

Piotr Popieluch  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 1293047] New: Review Request: nodejs-deferred - Modular and fast Promises implementation for JavaScript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293047

Bug ID: 1293047
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-deferred - Modular and fast
Promises implementation for JavaScript
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: piotr1...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-deferred-0.7.4-1.spec
SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-deferred-0.7.4-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Modular and fast Promises implementation for JavaScript
Fedora Account System Username: piotrp

-- 
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 1292233] Review Request: nodejs-are-we-there-yet - Keep track of the overall completion of many disparate processes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292233



--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-are-we-there-yet

-- 
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 1254851] Review Request: python-os-testr : A testr wrapper to provide functionality for OpenStack projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1254851

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|RAWHIDE |---
   Keywords||Reopened



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-os-testr-0.4.1-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update python-os-testr'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-64215148f4

-- 
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 1292400] Review Request: nodejs-next-tick - Environment agnostic nextTick polyfill

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292400

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|RAWHIDE |---
   Keywords||Reopened



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-next-tick-0.2.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update nodejs-next-tick'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-162c98173d

-- 
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 1292295] Review Request: nodejs-is-windows - Returns true if the platform is windows

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292295

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-is-windows-0.1.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update nodejs-is-windows'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-c48e4ee695

-- 
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 1270513] Review Request: newtonsoft-json - Popular high-performance JSON framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270513

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
newtonsoft-json-7.0.1-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update newtonsoft-json'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-8ca4415c01

-- 
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 1292415] Review Request: nodejs-timers-ext - Timers extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292415
Bug 1292415 depends on bug 1292400, which changed state.

Bug 1292400 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-next-tick - Environment agnostic 
nextTick polyfill
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292400

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|RAWHIDE |---



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

[Bug 1292061] Review Request: perl-POE-Loop-Event - Bridge that allows POE to be driven by Event.pm

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292061

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-POE-Loop-Event-1.305-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update perl-POE-Loop-Event'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-b553b7be30

-- 
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 1291459] Review Request: sysreporter - Basic system reporter with emailing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291459

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
sysreporter-3.0.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update sysreporter'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-c38626732e

-- 
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 1289860] Review Request: emacs-php-mode - Major GNU Emacs mode for editing PHP code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289860

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System  ---
emacs-php-mode-1.17.0-5.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update emacs-php-mode'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-277be10034

-- 
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 1292057] Review Request: perl-DBIx-QueryLog - Logging queries for DBI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292057

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-DBIx-QueryLog-0.41-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update perl-DBIx-QueryLog'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-3a58d43cc5

-- 
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 1293045] New: Review Request: fontopia - the console font editor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293045

Bug ID: 1293045
   Summary: Review Request: fontopia - the console font editor
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: mohammed_isam1...@yahoo.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/fontopia.spec
SRPM URL:
http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/fontopia-1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm
Description: Fontopia is an easy-to-use, text-based, console font editor.
Fontopia is not only a conversion tool, it includes complete features to
re-size and manipulate glyphs, edit font metrics and other meta-data. Unlike
other console font tools, fontopia works on both PSF 1 & 2, CP and Raw fonts.
Type conversion is as simple as changing font type in memory and saving it to
disk in the other version. Fontopia allows exporting and importing of Unicode
tables from external files or other fonts. It provides a user-friendly,
easy-to-use glyph editor. It can easily change font metrics, e.g. length,
width, height, etc. It performs basic glyph operations like inversion,
flipping, setting/unsetting bits, and much more. Fontopia is the first
dedicated text-based editor for console fonts.
Fedora Account System Username: mohammedisam

-- 
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 1293049] Review Request: libpasastro - Pascal interface for standard astronomy libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293049



--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
mattia's scratch build of libpasastro-1.0-2.20151219svn.fc23.src.rpm for f24
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12255912

-- 
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 1288643] Review Request: dlib - A modern C++ toolkit containing machine learning algorithms

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288643

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |



--- Comment #9 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Please link to the raw spec file in the 'Spec URL' field. Otherwise
fedora-review and other automated tools (or even running wget to get the file)
don't work.


The License field needs further correction (sorry, what I said above wasn't
fully correct). The "and Public Domain" part only applies to the examples. If
the examples were included e.g. in the -devel subpackage, than that subpackage
would have a different license from the main subpackage. But I see that the
examples are not packaged at all. So...

1. You should split out a -doc subpackage. The documentation is pretty big, and
there's no need to install it everywhere.

2. You should include the examples in -doc. They will be pretty useful for
users of the library. They don't have to be compiled.

3. Finally have License:Boost at the top of the spec file, and then
License:Boost and Public Domain in the -doc subpackage.

4. Python packages include the examples, under the Public Domain license, so
they should have License:Boost and Public Domain. You should also include
LICENSE_FOR_EXAMPLE_PROGRAMS.txt in the %license field for those packages.

> I hope I fixed everything, but probably I misunterstood you and used too 
> complicated way to remove dotfiles from documentation. Is it possible to
> do it easier? I did not find out how to use %exclude in this case.
What you did is fairly straightforward. You can simplify it a bit by
doing the removal directly in %build using relative path:
rm -r docs/python/.{buildinfo,doctrees}

Using %exclude would look like
%files devel
...
%exclude %{_docdir}/%{name}-devel/docs/python/.buildinfo
%exclude %{_docdir}/%{name}-devel/docs/python/.doctrees
but I think that removing them in %install is better (simpler and less error
prone) and removing them in %build is even better.


In the build I see the following:
-- Found BLAS library
-- Looking for cblas_ddot
-- Looking for cblas_ddot - not found
-- BLAS library does not have cblas symbols, so dlib will not use BLAS or
LAPACK
 *
 *** No BLAS library found so using dlib's built in BLAS.  However, if you ***
 *** install an optimized BLAS such as OpenBLAS or the Intel MKL your code ***
 *** will run faster.  On Ubuntu you can install OpenBLAS by executing:***
 ***sudo apt-get install libopenblas-dev liblapack-dev ***
 *** Or you can easily install OpenBLAS from source by downloading the ***
 *** source tar file from http://www.openblas.net, extracting it, and  ***
 *** running:  ***
 ***make; sudo make install***
 *
Most likely the test is wrong. It is possible that you might need add more
'-lxxx' compilation options.


rpmlint:
dlib.src:90: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 90, tab: line 1)

Looks good otherwise.

--

Regarding sponsorship: I'd be happy to sponsor you. Can you do two or three
reviews of packages from http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html
and post the links here?


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 1293053] Review Request: nodejs-next - Functions that extend and complement Node.js API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293053

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews)
 Depends On||1292429, 1293047




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806
[Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292429
[Bug 1292429] Review Request: nodejs-memoizee - Memoize/cache function
results
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293047
[Bug 1293047] Review Request: nodejs-deferred - Modular and fast Promises
implementation for JavaScript
-- 
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 1293047] Review Request: nodejs-deferred - Modular and fast Promises implementation for JavaScript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293047

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1293053




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293053
[Bug 1293053] Review Request: nodejs-next - Functions that extend and
complement Node.js API
-- 
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 1292429] Review Request: nodejs-memoizee - Memoize/cache function results

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292429

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1293053




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293053
[Bug 1293053] Review Request: nodejs-next - Functions that extend and
complement Node.js API
-- 
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 1218410] Review Request: python-APSscheduler - In-process task scheduler with Cron-like capabilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218410



--- Comment #14 from Paul Belanger  ---
Spec URL:
https://pabelanger.fedorapeople.org/python-apscheduler/2015-12-19-0001/python-apscheduler.spec
SRPM URL:
https://pabelanger.fedorapeople.org/python-apscheduler/2015-12-19-0001/python-apscheduler-3.0.5-1.fc24.src.rpm

I've updated the spec to support python3. Hopefully caught all the existing
issues with the first rounds of reviews.

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

[Bug 1218410] Review Request: python-APSscheduler - In-process task scheduler with Cron-like capabilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218410



--- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-APScheduler

-- 
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 1291169] Review Request: ccdciel - CCD capture software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291169

Mattia Verga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||115 (Astronomy-SIG)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=115
[Bug 115] Astronomy SIG - 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 1293075] New: Review Request: lximage-qt - The image viewer and screenshot tool for lxqt

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293075

Bug ID: 1293075
   Summary: Review Request: lximage-qt - The image viewer and
screenshot tool for lxqt
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: projects...@smart.ms
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/lx/lximage-qt.spec
SRPM URL:
https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/lx/lximage-qt-0.4.0-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description: The image viewer and screenshot tool for lxqt 
Fedora Account System Username: raphgro

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12258797

-- 
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 1293075] Review Request: lximage-qt - The image viewer and screenshot tool for lxqt

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293075



--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
raphgro's scratch build of lximage-qt-0.4.0-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12258797

-- 
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 1289760] Review Request: drawtk - A C library to perform efficient 3D drawings

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289760

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl



--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
How alive is this project? It doesn't even seem to have a publicly visible
repository, it's hard to find a changelog. Do you need it as a dependency for
something else, or do you intend to use it for new development?

-- 
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 1293043] Review Request: python-epac - Machine learning workflow builder

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293043

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
Summary|Review Request: python-epac |Review Request: python-epac
   |- EPAC is a machine |- Machine learning workflow
   |learning workflow builder.  |builder
  Flags|fedora-review-  |



--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
fedora-review- is for packages which can't be fixed, while the review is in
progress it's customary not to set anything, or to set fedora-review?.

Do not repeat the package name in the summary (it should be short to display
properly in various listings). Maybe
Summary:  Machine learning workflow builder

The license tag for bsd 3-clause is just "BSD". See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses.

You should create a python2 subpackage, and add support for python3 if
possible.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file
for the new python packaging.

-- 
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 1282893] Review Request: quantum-espresso - A suite for electronic-structure calculations and materials modeling

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282893



--- Comment #20 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
warning: bogus date in %changelog: Wed Dec 19 2015 Marcin Dulak
 5.1.2-3

quantum-espresso.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 5.1.2-3
['5.2.1-3.fc24', '5.2.1-3']

> > > * Will smp make not work?  There's no comment, and the build takes a 
> > > while.
> > Yeah, the build takes forever. More threads would be great.
> make %{?_smp_mflags} failed for me
Please al least add a comment in the spec file.

It would be great to work with upstream to fix parallel compilation, and to be
able to run the tests in parallel.

> > > * Shouldn't the doc be installed?
> I believe nobody reads the docs installed on the system nowadays.
I could dispute that. Packaged docs have advantages: they work offline, they
don't get out of sync with the package, they are still there if the upstream
goes away. But they are not mandatory, so if you don't want to package them
that's OK.

> + cp -p '%{SOURCE20}' pseudo
> cp: cannot stat `%{SOURCE20}': No such file or directory
It needs one more expansion level:
cp -p %{expand: %{lua: for i=20,41 do print("%{SOURCE"..i.."} ") end}} pseudo/

When running the build, a number of errors appear like this:
Checking uspp...[warn] Epoll ADD(4) on fd 1 failed.  Old events were 0; read
change was 0 (none); write change was 1 (add): Operation not permitted

This might be caused by trying to add /dev/null. Cf. the following python
transcript:

>>> import select
>>> p = select.epoll()
>>> f = open('/dev/null', 'r')
>>> p.register(f.fileno())
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "", line 1, in 
PermissionError: [Errno 1] Operation not permitted

It fails with the same error code. Maybe the warning in tests is harmless,
maybe not, please investigate that.

rpmlint:
quantum-espresso.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nanoscale ->
nanosecond
quantum-espresso.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
pseudopotentials -> pseudo potentials, pseudo-potentials, potentials
False positives.

quantum-espresso.x86_64: W: no-documentation
quantum-espresso.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ...
OK.

quantum-espresso-debuginfo.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/src/debug/espresso-5.2.1/TDDFPT/src/...
Since this is only in the debug package, it's OK.


You created the q-e-common subpackage. It has only one file, which is a few
kilobytes. I think it would be totally fine to package this file in the main
package, the savings are not worth the overhead of having another subpackage.


>> > * I'd have thought iotk should be unbundled, but I don't know if it's of
>> > more general use.
>> Hm, good question. Is it used anywhere else?
>
>iotk is required by http://www.yambo-code.org/
>Unbundling iotk would require some work, and I'm not willing to do this
>without the support from quantum-espresso developers.
>Yambo is currently hosted on qe-forge
>http://qe-forge.org/gf/project/yambo/frs/?action=FrsReleaseBrowse_package_id=40
>which means that it's probably related to quantum-espresso and when packaging 
>yambo one could just BuildRequires: >quantum-espresso-{openmpi,static}-devel 
>and quantum-espresso-{openmpi,static}-static

You should build iotk as a shared library. This is very strongly encouraged
[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries].
IS there a good reason to build iotk as a static lib?

-- 
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 1292057] Review Request: perl-DBIx-QueryLog - Logging queries for DBI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292057



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-DBIx-QueryLog-0.41-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update perl-DBIx-QueryLog'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-b0b0f5aae7

-- 
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 1292416] Review Request: nodejs-es5-ext - ECMAScript 5 extensions and ES6 shims

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292416



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-es5-ext-0.10.10-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-es5-ext'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-dc71a9e4be

-- 
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 1291459] Review Request: sysreporter - Basic system reporter with emailing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291459



--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System  ---
sysreporter-3.0.2-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update sysreporter'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-5e675baa45

-- 
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 1292295] Review Request: nodejs-is-windows - Returns true if the platform is windows

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292295



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-is-windows-0.1.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-is-windows'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-bc8283a34e

-- 
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 1292061] Review Request: perl-POE-Loop-Event - Bridge that allows POE to be driven by Event.pm

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292061



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-POE-Loop-Event-1.305-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update perl-POE-Loop-Event'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-6b4a63f294

-- 
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 1292413] Review Request: nodejs-es6-iterator - Iterator abstraction based on ES6 specification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292413



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-es6-iterator-2.0.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-es6-iterator'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1f1a857bff

-- 
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 1292424] Review Request: nodejs-d - Property descriptor factory

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292424



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-d-1.0.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-d'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-0cb0bf11fc

-- 
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 1292412] Review Request: nodejs-es6-symbol - ECMAScript 6 Symbol polyfill

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292412



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-es6-symbol-3.0.2-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-es6-symbol'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-d452a6b601

-- 
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 1292400] Review Request: nodejs-next-tick - Environment agnostic nextTick polyfill

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292400



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-next-tick-0.2.2-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-next-tick'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-ecc057471b

-- 
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 1292272] Review Request: nodm - A display manager automatically starting an X session

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292272

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodm-0.7-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodm'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-6bb2169d1e

-- 
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 1291459] Review Request: sysreporter - Basic system reporter with emailing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291459



--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System  ---
sysreporter-3.0.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1291459] Review Request: sysreporter - Basic system reporter with emailing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291459

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2015-12-20 01:52:00



-- 
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 1293075] Review Request: lximage-qt - The image viewer and screenshot tool for lxqt

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293075

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||928937 (qt-reviews),
   ||1202425 (LXQt)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928937
[Bug 928937] Qt-related package review tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202425
[Bug 1202425] LXQt
-- 
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 1234210] Review Request: pdf-stapler - tool for manipulating PDF documents from the command line

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234210

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #33 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Let's finish the review. It's 95% of the way there ;)

While this review has been in progress, python packaging guidelines have
changed (See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file). You
should change %build and %install to

%build
%py2_build

%install
py2_install

This should have the exact same effect, but is standard and more concise.


%description is still awkward. If you really want to keep the history part in,
at least remove the paragraph about PDFtk. No need to go into detail about an
alternative project's downsides.


Please add empty lines between each entry in %changelog.


--


I recently gained the sponsorship privileges and I'd be happy to sponsor you
into the packagers group. Please open up a fresh copy of
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines, fire up fedora-review, and
do a two-three reviews from
https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html, and paste the links
here.


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 1285515] Review Request: php-symfony-polyfill - Symfony polyfills backporting features to lower PHP versions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285515



--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-paragonie-random-compat-1.1.0-2.fc22, php-symfony-polyfill-1.0.0-3.fc22 has
been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist,
please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1270364] Review Request: nacl-arm-binutils - A GNU collection of binary utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270364



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
nacl-arm-binutils-2.25.2-2.gitcde986c.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22
stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.

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

[Bug 1285514] Review Request: php-paragonie-random-compat - PHP 5.x polyfill for random_bytes() and random_int() from PHP 7

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285514



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-paragonie-random-compat-1.1.0-2.fc22, php-symfony-polyfill-1.0.0-3.fc22 has
been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist,
please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1291008] Review Request: tipl - Template image processing library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291008

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl



--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
The usual: please extend %description.

s/Headers-only/Header-only/

Can you submit the patches upstream?

Looks 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 1289738] Review Request: plasma-user-manager - Manage the users of your system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289738

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1293078




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293078
[Bug 1293078] SDDM doesn't use .face.icon
-- 
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 1281998] Review Request: python-stuf - Fancy python dictionary types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1281998



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-stuf-0.9.16-5.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1215354] Review Request: python-assimulo - Ordinary differential and differential algebraic equations solver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215354



--- Comment #51 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-assimulo-2.8-7.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1236488] Review Request: indistarter - GUI for Indi Server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1236488

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2015-12-20 01:53:56



-- 
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 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154
Bug 505154 depends on bug 1215354, which changed state.

Bug 1215354 Summary: Review Request: python-assimulo - Ordinary differential 
and differential algebraic equations solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215354

   What|Removed |Added

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



-- 
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 1215354] Review Request: python-assimulo - Ordinary differential and differential algebraic equations solver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215354



--- Comment #50 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-assimulo-2.8-7.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1215354] Review Request: python-assimulo - Ordinary differential and differential algebraic equations solver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215354

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2015-12-20 01:53:42



-- 
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 1236488] Review Request: indistarter - GUI for Indi Server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1236488



--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System  ---
indistarter-0.2.0-4.20151211svn.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1282893] Review Request: quantum-espresso - A suite for electronic-structure calculations and materials modeling

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282893

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Attachment|0   |1
#1107142 is||
   obsolete||



-- 
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 1288836] Review Request: python-petlink - Decode and encode PETlink streams

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288836

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
What are PETlink stream? Please put that in %description.

0.3.1 is out (and Source URL does not work, which probably is related).

No issues with the packaging.

-- 
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 1282893] Review Request: quantum-espresso - A suite for electronic-structure calculations and materials modeling

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282893



--- Comment #22 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Created attachment 1107853
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1107853=edit
lua magic

-- 
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 1282893] Review Request: quantum-espresso - A suite for electronic-structure calculations and materials modeling

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282893



--- Comment #21 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Created attachment 1107852
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1107852=edit
patch to disable some tedious 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 1292415] Review Request: nodejs-timers-ext - Timers extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292415

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||piotr1...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
Fix url.

Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-timers-ext/nodejs-timers-ext.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-timers-ext/nodejs-timers-ext-0.1.0-1.fc24.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 1292429] Review Request: nodejs-memoizee - Memoize/cache function results

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292429

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||piotr1...@gmail.com
Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
   |nodejs-memoizee --  |nodejs-memoizee -
   |Memoize/cache function  |Memoize/cache function
   |results |results



-- 
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 1292425] Review Request: nodejs-es6-weak-map - ECMAScript6 WeakMap polyfill

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292425

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||piotr1...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|piotr1...@gmail.com



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

[Bug 1292425] Review Request: nodejs-es6-weak-map - ECMAScript6 WeakMap polyfill

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292425

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
APPROVED


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 20 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1292425-nodejs-es6-weak-map/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.
[-]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: 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.
[!]: %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 can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

= EXTRA items =

[Bug 1292426] Review Request: nodejs-event-emitter - Environment agnostic event emitter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292426

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||piotr1...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|piotr1...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
APPROVED,

suggestion, add CHANGES %doc



Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 21 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1292426-nodejs-event-emitter/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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: 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.
[!]: %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 can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, 

[Bug 1292428] Review Request: nodejs-lru-queue - LRU queue

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292428

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||piotr1...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|piotr1...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
APPROVED

We should try to get the tad test framework in...


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 8 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1292428-nodejs-lru-queue/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: 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.
[!]: %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 can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, 

[Bug 1292415] Review Request: nodejs-timers-ext - Timers extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292415

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|piotr1...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
APPROVED

suggestion: add CHANGES to %doc


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 14 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1292415-nodejs-timers-ext/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: 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.
[!]: %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 can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should 

[Bug 1292244] Update python-statsd to 3.2.1

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292244

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|NOTABUG |RAWHIDE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1292413] Review Request: nodejs-es6-iterator - Iterator abstraction based on ES6 specification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292413



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-es6-iterator-2.0.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-es6-iterator'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-9d6dd21160

-- 
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 1292424] Review Request: nodejs-d - Property descriptor factory

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292424



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-d-1.0.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-d'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-03ce51864d

-- 
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 1292400] Review Request: nodejs-next-tick - Environment agnostic nextTick polyfill

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292400



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-next-tick-0.2.2-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-next-tick'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7c380807dc

-- 
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 1292412] Review Request: nodejs-es6-symbol - ECMAScript 6 Symbol polyfill

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292412



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-es6-symbol-3.0.2-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-es6-symbol'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-e5a22e98d5

-- 
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 1292295] Review Request: nodejs-is-windows - Returns true if the platform is windows

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292295



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-is-windows-0.1.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-is-windows'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-516682f7f0

-- 
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 1291459] Review Request: sysreporter - Basic system reporter with emailing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291459



--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
sysreporter-3.0.2-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update sysreporter'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-e12d03b67f

-- 
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 1292416] Review Request: nodejs-es5-ext - ECMAScript 5 extensions and ES6 shims

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292416



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-es5-ext-0.10.10-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-es5-ext'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7354dc4f7f

-- 
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 1289717] Review Request: viennacl - Linear algebra and solver library using CUDA, OpenCL, and OpenMP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289717



--- Comment #3 from Ilya Gradina  ---
New Spec URL: https://github.com/neurofedora/ViennaCL/raw/master/viennacl.spec
New SRPM URL:
https://github.com/neurofedora/ViennaCL/raw/master/viennacl-1.7.0-2.fc23.src.rpm

tests: http://sourceforge.net/p/viennacl/mailman/message/34697733/

-- 
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 1267328] Review Request: rubygem-connection_pool - Generic connection pool for Ruby

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267328



--- Comment #4 from Ilya Gradina  ---
Hi Mamoru,

thx), I fixed all yours notes:

New Spec URL:
https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-connection_pool.spec
New SRPM URL:
https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-connection_pool-2.2.0-2.fc23.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