[Bug 1304882] New: Review Request: openqa - OS-level automated test framework and web UI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304882

Bug ID: 1304882
   Summary: Review Request: openqa - OS-level automated test
framework and web UI
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: awill...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/openqa/openqa.spec
SRPM URL:
https://www.happyassassin.net/reviews/openqa/openqa-4.3-6.fc24.src.rpm
Description: openQA is an automated test tool for operating systems.
Fedora Account System Username: adamwill

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW)
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed|2015-09-13 13:21:52 |2016-02-04 17:13:27



--- Comment #26 from Raphael Groner  ---
Setting as dead, as policy recommends.


Referenced Bugs:

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

[Bug 1229903] Review Request: NetworkManager-sstp - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSTP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229903



--- Comment #8 from Marcin Zajaczkowski  ---
IT took me a while, but I was able to manage it

> [!]: Buildroot is not present

Removed

> [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
> Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
> AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10/configure.ac:17

I can ask the project author to replace it with LT_INIT by the next version. Do
you see it as a blocker and I need to create a patch?

> 3. Drop changelog not from you. ALSO, leave a blank for each changelog entry.

I'm not convinced to drop the old changelog entries. There is a history how the
package evolved before it became a part of Fedora. In many packages available
in Fedora there is that history kept.

> 4. Epoch: 1
> This doesn't make sense at all.

The original specification author took it for unknown reasons. The benefit of
using it would be an ability to upgrade to the never version when available in
Fedora (in other case it would have to be done manually by removing old
package). Nevertheless you think it would be a good move I can remove it.

> 5. Drop all Group tags.

Done

> 6. RPM is not dumb like past, drop eplicit requires unless RPM can't detect 
> and pull in.

I was able to remove NetworkManager-devel from BuildRequires and gtk3 from
Requires. Looking at the generated requires maybe also dbus could be removed
from Requires as there is a reference to libdbus-1.so.3, but dbus-libs in
theory could be installed without a dbus package.

> 7. %if 0%{?fedora} > 17

Done

> 8. Requires: ppp
> Not enough, once ppp bumps the version, this plugin will be broken.

I changed the minimal ppp version to 2.4.6. In Fedora 23 there is 2.4.7 and it
seems to work fine. Do you suggest to set 2.4.7 as the highest allowed version?
I don't if changes in 2.4.8 will be compatible with sstp plugin or not, but
maybe it is too strict constraint?

> 9. %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version}
> 10. if [ ! -f configure ]; then

Done

> Would you stop copying the spec form others wholesale?

I could do it from scratch, but it seemed a better solution for me to reuse
existing spec file for a sibling project which is already in Fedora (which
should be quite ok as it passed the initial review - in hindsight I see that
the pptp package is quite old (2007) and could stand our from the current
standards).

>> This package contains software for integrating VPN capabilities with the 
>> SSTP server with NetworkManager (GNOME files).
> Please rework the description, `with...with...` sounds redundant and not 
> grammatical.

The description is exactly the same in all NetworkManager-*-gnome I've seen.
Nevertheless I changes it to:
> This package contains software for integrating VPN capabilities using the 
> SSTP server with NetworkManager (GNOME files).

English is not my mother tongue, so please propose something else if you don't
like it.

SPEC URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/szpak/network-manager-sstp/c4d04a21428183a5d3f5ba2165666dc32851d998/NetworkManager-sstp.spec
SRPM URL:
http://timeoff.wsisiz.edu.pl/rpms/NetworkManager-sstp/NetworkManager-sstp-0.9.10-6.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

[Bug 1304900] Review Request: nodejs-file-sync-cmp - Synchronous file comparison

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304900

Jared Smith  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 1304900] New: Review Request: nodejs-file-sync-cmp - Synchronous file comparison

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304900

Bug ID: 1304900
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-file-sync-cmp - Synchronous
file comparison
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-file-sync-cmp/nodejs-file-sync-cmp.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-file-sync-cmp/nodejs-file-sync-cmp-0.1.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Synchronous file comparison
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|projects...@smart.ms|nob...@fedoraproject.org



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

[Bug 1229886] Review Request: pynote - Manage notes on the commandline

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229886
Bug 1229886 depends on bug 1229975, which changed state.

Bug 1229975 Summary: Review Request: python-plaintable - Python simple library 
to build plain text tables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229975

   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 1229975] Review Request: python-plaintable - Python simple library to build plain text tables

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229975



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-plaintable-0.1.1-2.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 1304882] Review Request: openqa - OS-level automated test framework and web UI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304882

awill...@redhat.com  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mgr...@redhat.com,
   ||zbys...@in.waw.pl



--- Comment #1 from awill...@redhat.com  ---
I was kinda planning to clean this up a bit and comment some things before
submitting the review request, but I figured I could submit what I had and we
can go from there. This is the exact package currently in use on
https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/ .

As with os-autoinst the spec is based on the openSUSE one and I'd like to keep
it similar as far as possible, to make it easy to sync back future changes from
them.

One particular note, explaining this line:

%requires_eqperl-Mojolicious-Plugin-Bootstrap3
perl-Mojolicious-Plugin-AssetPack

and this chunk:

# strange way to precompile assets :)
./script/initdb --init_database
./script/openqa version  -m production
cp -a public/packed %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/openqa/public/

openQA uses a web framework (Mojolicious) with an asset management plugin
(AssetPack), and a plugin that basically just provides Bootstrap in an
AssetPack-y way (Bootstrap3). The way this is kinda envisioned to work is that
the app will 'compile' the needed assets on-demand - that is, bundle up all the
CSS and JS bits it actually needs into single, minified files - and keep them
around, tracking whether the source files have changed with checksums, and
re-generating the minified and flattened copies when the source files change.

The SUSE guys decided to handle it a bit differently: they make it so the app
has no write permissions to the directory where the app stores the assets when
run normally, and pre-create the minified+flattened assets by running it as
root during the package build.

The reason for doing this is to reduce the security exposure of the webapp,
which seems like a pretty reasonable point to me. The tradeoff is that if the
source files change, the webapp will notice and try to recompile the flattened
assets, but it will fail because it can't write to the asset directory. This is
why the package has that %requires_eq line. "%requires_eq foo" creates a
dependency on the exact EVR of 'foo' that was installed at the time of the
package build. So by having %requires_eq for Bootstrap3 and AssetPack, any time
those packages (which provide the source assets) are updated, openQA's deps
will break, cueing us to rebuild it (whereupon the assets included in the
package will be the correct ones again).

If we were to just go ahead and let the app write to the asset dir we could
simplify the spec file and avoid the need to rebuild the package any time
Bootstrap3 or AssetPack changed, but I do think there's a valid point about
potential security exposure by allowing the server to write files it will later
serve out to clients for execution. So I'm kinda on the fence about this one
and willing to hear reviewers' thoughts.

On this topic - I do want to build an SELinux policy for openQA, but a) I
haven't had time to yet and b) I can't really do a proper one until the
selinux-policy folks look at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277312 . Right now the actual
openQA webapp runs unconfined (as it's a separate process which a full-fat web
server is intended to reverse proxy, as in the included sample Apache
configuration).

CCing Zbyszek (as he's kindly reviewed several things for me, including
os-autoinst, openQA's underlying test runner) and mgrepl for thoughts on
SELinux.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #25 from Raphael Groner  ---
Ankur, please follow our policy for stalled reviews.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_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 1304876] New: Review Request: nodejs-read-dir-files - Recursively read files from a directory

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304876

Bug ID: 1304876
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-read-dir-files - Recursively
read files from a directory
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-read-dir-files/nodejs-read-dir-files.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-read-dir-files/nodejs-read-dir-files-0.1.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Recursively read files from a directory
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1208738] Review Request: vera++ - A tool for verification, analysis and transformation of C++ source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208738

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review+  |



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

[Bug 1291877] Review Request: python-nilearn - Python module for fast and easy statistical learning on NeuroImaging data

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291877



--- Comment #2 from William Moreno  ---
License OK
License match upstream OK
License macro in files OK
License installed in all subpackages OK
Naming OK
Python2 subpackage OK
Python3 subpackage OK
Python provides macro OK
Python macros OK
No bundled egg.info OK
Not bundled libs upstream OK
Code not Bynary OK
Directories ownership OK


Issues:
A very long test suite is present but some test fails in rawhide and f23.

You BuildRequires both python-sphinx and python3-sphinx but you are not
building the docs and do not provide a docs subpackage.

Sorry for the latee feedback but this package take a very long time to build
due to the large test suite and my mock build ending failing, any way this spec
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 1304876] Review Request: nodejs-read-dir-files - Recursively read files from a directory

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304876

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews),
   ||1269538 (IoT)




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=1269538
[Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1288731] Review Request: os-autoinst - OS-level test automation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288731



--- Comment #25 from awill...@redhat.com  ---
openQA review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304882

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1304882] Review Request: openqa - OS-level automated test framework and web UI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304882

awill...@redhat.com  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com
   ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1277312



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1229903] Review Request: NetworkManager-sstp - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSTP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229903



--- Comment #9 from Marcin Zajaczkowski  ---
Regarding AC_PROG_LIBTOOL I disabled using autogen.sh, so the only thing I can
do is to report it upstream.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1304967] New: Review Request: perl-Tie-Hash-Method - Tied hash with specific methods overridden by callbacks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304967

Bug ID: 1304967
   Summary: Review Request: perl-Tie-Hash-Method - Tied hash with
specific methods overridden by callbacks
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Tie-Hash-Method/perl-Tie-Hash-Method.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Tie-Hash-Method/perl-Tie-Hash-Method-0.02-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description:
Perl Tie::Hash::Method module provides a way to create a tied hash with
specific overridden behavior without having to create a new class to do it.
A tied hash with no methods overridden is functionally equivalent to a normal
hash.
Fedora Account System Username: ppisar

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1304967] Review Request: perl-Tie-Hash-Method - Tied hash with specific methods overridden by callbacks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304967

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1304705




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304705
[Bug 1304705] perl-Test-PostgreSQL-1.20 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 1304882] Review Request: openqa - OS-level automated test framework and web UI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304882

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ngomp...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa  ---
I've taken a quick look-over of the package, and I've noticed a few quirks.

* The worker subpackage has "Requires(post): os-autoinst >= 4" and "Requires:
os-autoinst < 5". This is rather strange, as usually semantic versioning
enforcement is in the same class of Requires (be it BuildRequires, Requires, or
Requires(*)). It's not usually mixed. Is there a good reason for this? The spec
didn't indicate anything obvious that would require it.

* Why aren't we running the tests in the %check section? We delete a test, but
then don't actually run any tests here.

* This is a bit of a style nitpick, but don't we usually use %{} format for
user-defined macros too? I see "%openqa_services" and "%openqa_worker_services"
instead of "%{openqa_services}" and "%{openqa_worker_services}"

* In the scriptlets, I don't see usage of macros for file paths that we use
elsewhere. This has the potential to break things if the macros were redefined
in the future. Please use them in the scriptlets. I believe they'll get
evaluated before being written to the package, so it shouldn't be a problem.

* If at all possible, could you split out the httpd configuration to a separate
subpackage? It might be possible in the future to get nginx or another
webserver supported for using with openQA, and it'd be nice if it wasn't
hardcoded from the get-go for httpd. You should be able to set up some kind of
virtual Provide to be required or use Requires (which would eventually turn
into a rich dependency) to handle this for ensuring openQA continued to work.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1229975] Review Request: python-plaintable - Python simple library to build plain text tables

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229975



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-plaintable-0.1.1-2.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 1303245] Review Request: lrbd - Configure iSCSI access to Ceph rbd images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303245

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
lrbd-1.0.2-0.1.20160129gitcc757bc.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-919af89213

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1295249] Review Request: python-gatspy - General tools for Astronomical Time Series in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295249

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-gatspy-0.2.1-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f5ae03d868

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1295478] Review Request: python-astroquery - Access astronomical online data resources

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295478

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-astroquery-0.3.1-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5ffcbd08ef

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1294331] Review Request: erlang-oauth2 - An Oauth2 implementation for Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294331

Jeremy Cline  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rbar...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(rbar...@redhat.co
   ||m)



--- Comment #12 from Jeremy Cline  ---
It appears that the package no longer builds:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12875518

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1295011] Review Request: erlang-p1_mysql - Erlang MySQL driver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295011

Jeremy Cline  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Jeremy Cline  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jcline/devel/fedora-
 review/1295011-erlang-p1_mysql/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

= EXTRA items =

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
 is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
---
Checking: erlang-p1_mysql-0-1.20150929gitdfa87da9.fc24.x86_64.rpm
  erlang-p1_mysql-0-1.20150929gitdfa87da9.fc24.src.rpm
erlang-p1_mysql.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ejabberd ->

[Bug 1294331] Review Request: erlang-oauth2 - An Oauth2 implementation for Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294331

Jeremy Cline  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jer...@jcline.org
  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1294862] Review Request: python3-nose - Discovery-based unittest extension for Python 3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294862

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-nose-1.3.7-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-05d0cc6652

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1294730] Review Request: erlang-p1_pgsql - Pure Erlang PostgreSQL driver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294730

Jeremy Cline  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #6 from Jeremy Cline  ---
Note that since you packaged this there has been a new release upstream.

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "MPL (v1.0)". 1 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jcline/devel/fedora-
 review/1294730-erlang-p1_pgsql/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: 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 

[Bug 1295011] Review Request: erlang-p1_mysql - Erlang MySQL driver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295011

Jeremy Cline  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jer...@jcline.org
  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1294368] Review Request: erlang-p1_iconv - Erlang bindings for iconv

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294368

Jeremy Cline  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jer...@jcline.org
  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1295249] Review Request: python-gatspy - General tools for Astronomical Time Series in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295249



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-gatspy-0.2.1-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6ebe790da3

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1298251] Review Request: shrinkpdf - Simple wrapper around Ghostscript to shrink PDFs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298251

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
shrinkpdf-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.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-98f34222a4

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1303245] Review Request: lrbd - Configure iSCSI access to Ceph rbd images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303245



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
lrbd-1.0.2-0.1.20160129gitcc757bc.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-1fc3fb5682

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1295478] Review Request: python-astroquery - Access astronomical online data resources

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295478



--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-astroquery-0.3.1-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9c8cac3e4d

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1303245] Review Request: lrbd - Configure iSCSI access to Ceph rbd images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303245



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
lrbd-1.0.2-0.1.20160129gitcc757bc.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-f8c8f2628e

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1294730] Review Request: erlang-p1_pgsql - Pure Erlang PostgreSQL driver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294730

Jeremy Cline  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jer...@jcline.org
  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1294368] Review Request: erlang-p1_iconv - Erlang bindings for iconv

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1294368

Jeremy Cline  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Jeremy Cline  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "MIT/X11 (BSD
 like)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/jcline/devel/fedora-review/1294368
 -erlang-p1_iconv/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 

[Bug 1300070] Review Request: octave-doctest - Documentation tests for Octave

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300070



--- Comment #27 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/octave-doctest

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1300003] Review Request: fleet-commander - Admin interface for Fleet Commander

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=133

David King  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||dk...@redhat.com



--- Comment #10 from David King  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage
(I am not sure if this is necessary any more, with file triggers found in
recent rpm versions.)
- The %license macro must be used to list the COPYING* files.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- The License tag mentions that the package is under LGPLv2+, but there are
some files which are GPLv2+.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
- File/directory ownership, as listed below
- Bundles spice-html5 without a Provides (also some fonts, according to
fedora-review):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication_of_system_libraries


= 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.
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "LGPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11
 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD
 like) LGPL (v3 or later)". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/david/checkout/rpms/133-fleet-
 commander-admin/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/fleet-commander-admin,
 /etc/dbus-1/system.d, /usr/share/fleet-commander-
 admin/python/fleetcommander, /usr/share/fleet-commander-admin/python
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/dbus-1/system.d,
 /usr/share/fleet-commander-admin, /usr/share/fleet-commander-
 admin/python, /usr/share/fleet-commander-admin/python/fleetcommander
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources 

[Bug 1304774] New: Review Request: perl-Function-Parameters - Subroutine definitions with parameter lists

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304774

Bug ID: 1304774
   Summary: Review Request: perl-Function-Parameters - Subroutine
definitions with parameter lists
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Function-Parameters/perl-Function-Parameters.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Function-Parameters/perl-Function-Parameters-1.0703-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description:
This module extends Perl with keywords that let you define functions with
parameter lists. It uses Perl's keyword plugin API, so it works reliably
and doesn't require a source filter.

Fedora Account System Username: ppisar

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1295478] Review Request: python-astroquery - Access astronomical online data resources

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295478



--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-astroquery-0.3.1-3.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5ffcbd08ef

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1304774] Review Request: perl-Function-Parameters - Subroutine definitions with parameter lists

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304774

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1304705




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304705
[Bug 1304705] perl-Test-PostgreSQL-1.20 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 1295478] Review Request: python-astroquery - Access astronomical online data resources

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295478



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-astroquery-0.3.1-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9c8cac3e4d

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1299580] Review Request: python-grafyaml - Tools to make Grafana dashboards from templates

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299580



--- Comment #10 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Issues can be closed automatically only be updates. So bug numbers don't work
for rawhide because there are no updates.

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

[Bug 1270776] Review Request: restsharp - Simple REST and HTTP API Client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270776



--- Comment #7 from Raphael Groner  ---
Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openra/restsharp.spec
SRPM URL:
https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openra/restsharp-105.2.3-3.fc23.src.rpm

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12858849

%changelog
* Thu Feb 04 2016 Raphael Groner  - 105.2.3-3
- split devel subpackage, add mono as requirement in pkgconfig
- fix folder ownership of _monodir/name
- add license breakdown

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1270776] Review Request: restsharp - Simple REST and HTTP API Client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270776



--- Comment #8 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
raphgro's scratch build of restsharp-105.2.3-3.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12858849

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1280422] Review Request: rpg - RPM Package Generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422



--- Comment #11 from Jan Silhan  ---
I am sorry for delay. Rawhide build fixed and I am providing new links. I am
not sure whether the `-b` option in fedora-review will work. Link to spec in
comment 2 cannot be invalidated.

Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rh-lab-q/rpg/263cc773c25e7ff51271a7b6c4f921aa82de8279/rpg.spec

SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/nightly/rpg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00157917-rpg/rpg-0.0.5-1.git.4.263cc77.fc24.src.rpm


(In reply to Ranjan Maitra from comment #10)
> Btw, is it ok that your spec file requires python3-rpg? I don't see how this
> should be got.

yes, python3-rpg is a subpackage (library) and rpg is the GUI application using
this library.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1297150] Review Request: erlang-p1_xml - Fast Expat based Erlang XML parsing and manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297150



--- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/erlang-p1_xml

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1295478] Review Request: python-astroquery - Access astronomical online data resources

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295478

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1295478] Review Request: python-astroquery - Access astronomical online data resources

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295478



--- Comment #21 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/python-astroquery

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1299580] Review Request: python-grafyaml - Tools to make Grafana dashboards from templates

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299580

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
 Resolution|NOTABUG |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 1299580] Review Request: python-grafyaml - Tools to make Grafana dashboards from templates

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299580

Paul Belanger  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed||2016-02-04 10:23:08



--- Comment #8 from Paul Belanger  ---
Thanks, I've added the code to pkgdb and push into rawhide. Thanks again for
all the help.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1299580] Review Request: python-grafyaml - Tools to make Grafana dashboards from templates

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299580



--- Comment #9 from Paul Belanger  ---
Ah, thanks. I seem to always miss that.

Aside from manually close the issue, do bug numbers in commit message not work
for 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 1297234] Review Request: python-astropy-helpers - Utilities for building and installing Astropy and Astropy affiliated packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297234



--- Comment #8 from Raphael Groner  ---
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: "Unknown or generated". 56 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora-review/1297234-python-
 astropy-helpers/licensecheck.txt
=> New BSD (no advertising, 3 clause) 

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages,
 /usr/lib/python3.5
=> Both folders are owned in python3-libs. Maybe a bug.

[?]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
 packages, /usr/lib/python3.5
[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
=> see below for rpmlint

[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
=> Where do you run sphinx? Notice that python3-sphinx uses different and
   suffixed command: sphinx-build-3 vs. sphinx-build
=> Please remove setuptools from runtime. Is there any use case?

[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2
 -astropy-helpers , python3-astropy-helpers
=> Empty main package, ignore.

[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.

[Bug 1301589] Review Request: super-csv - A fast, programmer-friendly, free CSV library for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301589



--- Comment #14 from Pavel Alexeev  ---
$ rpm -qlp super-csv-2.4.0-3.fc22.noarch.rpm
/usr/share/doc/super-csv
/usr/share/doc/super-csv/README.md
/usr/share/java/super-csv/super-csv.jar
/usr/share/licenses/super-csv
/usr/share/licenses/super-csv/LICENSE.txt
/usr/share/maven-metadata/super-csv-super-csv.xml
/usr/share/maven-poms/super-csv/super-csv.pom

It contains /usr/share/java/super-csv/super-csv.jar but not
/usr/share/java/super-csv/

And noone contain it:
$ rpm -qlp super-csv*.noarch.rpm | grep /usr/share/java/super-csv/
/usr/share/java/super-csv/super-csv.jar
/usr/share/java/super-csv/super-csv-dozer.jar
/usr/share/java/super-csv/super-csv-java8.jar
/usr/share/java/super-csv/super-csv-joda.jar

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1270776] Review Request: restsharp - Simple REST and HTTP API Client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270776



--- Comment #6 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
raphgro's scratch build of restsharp-105.2.3-3.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12857375

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1301589] Review Request: super-csv - A fast, programmer-friendly, free CSV library for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301589



--- Comment #15 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Pavel Alexeev from comment #14)
> $ rpm -qlp super-csv-2.4.0-3.fc22.noarch.rpm
> /usr/share/doc/super-csv
> /usr/share/doc/super-csv/README.md
> /usr/share/java/super-csv/super-csv.jar
> /usr/share/licenses/super-csv
> /usr/share/licenses/super-csv/LICENSE.txt
> /usr/share/maven-metadata/super-csv-super-csv.xml
> /usr/share/maven-poms/super-csv/super-csv.pom
> 
> It contains /usr/share/java/super-csv/super-csv.jar but not
> /usr/share/java/super-csv/
> 
> And noone contain it:
> $ rpm -qlp super-csv*.noarch.rpm | grep /usr/share/java/super-csv/
> /usr/share/java/super-csv/super-csv.jar
> /usr/share/java/super-csv/super-csv-dozer.jar
> /usr/share/java/super-csv/super-csv-java8.jar
> /usr/share/java/super-csv/super-csv-joda.jar

i thought i had written that the package is only for Fedora> = 23
why you still use F22?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1304632] New: Review Request: libmlx5 - Mellanox Connect-IB InfiniBand HCA Userspace Driver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304632

Bug ID: 1304632
   Summary: Review Request: libmlx5 - Mellanox Connect-IB
InfiniBand HCA Userspace Driver
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: kh...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
http://people.redhat.com/honli/.bcc4d86c9ce430ffc0c40ba4b877b7c6/libmlx5.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/honli/.bcc4d86c9ce430ffc0c40ba4b877b7c6/libmlx5-1.0.2-1.fc22.src.rpm

Description: 
libmlx5 provides a device-specific userspace driver for Mellanox
Connect-IB HCAs for use with the libibverbs library.

Fedora Account System Username: kheib

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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