[Bug 1219662] Review Request: python-terminado - Terminals served to term.js using Tornado websockets

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219662



--- Comment #12 from Orion Poplawski  ---
* Mon Feb 22 2016 Orion Poplawski  - 0.6-1
- Update to 0.6
- Modernize spec

Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-terminado.spec
SRPM URL:
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-terminado-0.6-1.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 1219662] Review Request: python-terminado - Terminals served to term.js using Tornado websockets

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219662



--- Comment #11 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
orion's scratch build of python-terminado-0.6-1.fc24.src.rpm for f24-candidate
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13102226

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1304217] Review Request: python-latexcodec - Lexer and codec to work with LaTeX code in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304217



--- Comment #9 from Jerry James  ---
Okay, finally got a few minutes to update the URL and add the underscore
bundling Provides.  New URLs:

Spec URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-latexcodec/python-latexcodec.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-latexcodec/python-latexcodec-1.0.1-2.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 1219662] Review Request: python-terminado - Terminals served to term.js using Tornado websockets

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219662



--- Comment #10 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
orion's scratch build of python-terminado-0.6-1.fc24.src.rpm for f24-candidate
failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13101706

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1305336] Review Request: R-RInside - C++ Classes to Embed R in C++ Applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305336



--- Comment #5 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
nonamedotc's scratch build of R-RInside-0.2.13-1.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13101320

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1305336] Review Request: R-RInside - C++ Classes to Embed R in C++ Applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305336



--- Comment #4 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
> 
> Unversioned so-files
> 
> R-RInside: /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/libs/RInside.so
> R-RInside: /usr/lib64/libRInside.so
> 

For the sake of clarity 
- first entry is not an issue. 
- second file is also fine - at least, as far as I can tell.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1305336] Review Request: R-RInside - C++ Classes to Embed R in C++ Applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305336



--- Comment #3 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
Approved.

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

[Bug 1305336] Review Request: R-RInside - C++ Classes to Embed R in C++ Applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305336

Mukundan Ragavan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---

Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines

---> installs fine.

$ rpm -qa R-RInside*
R-RInside-examples-0.2.13-1.fc24.x86_64
R-RInside-0.2.13-1.fc24.x86_64


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


---> This is also fine.

- Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: R-RInside-examples :
  /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/qt/qtdensity.h R-RInside-examples :
 
/usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/client/callback_helper.h
  R-RInside-examples :
  /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/client/rinsideclient.h
  R-RInside-examples :
  /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/common/binarystream.h
  R-RInside-examples :
  /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/common/constants.h
  R-RInside-examples :
  /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/common/typeid.h R
  -RInside-examples :
  /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/datatypes/bar.h R
  -RInside-examples :
 
/usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/datatypes/bar_rcpp_wrapper_declarations.h
  R-RInside-examples :
 
/usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/datatypes/bar_rcpp_wrapper_definitions.h
  R-RInside-examples :
  /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/datatypes/foo.h R
  -RInside-examples :
 
/usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/datatypes/foo_rcpp_wrapper_declarations.h
  R-RInside-examples :
 
/usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/datatypes/foo_rcpp_wrapper_definitions.h
  R-RInside-examples :
 
/usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/server/internalfunction_clone.h
  R-RInside-examples :
 
/usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/server/rinside_callbacks.h
  R-RInside-examples :
  /usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/examples/sandboxed_server/server/rinsideserver.h
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages


---> All these are perfectly fine.


- Package requires R-core.

---> This is fine.

- Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires.
  Note: Missing BuildRequires on R-devel, tex(latex)
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:R


---> No issues here.

- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages


---> I think this is a bogus warning.

$ rpm -qlp R-RInside-devel-0.2.13-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm 
/usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/include
/usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/include/Callbacks.h
/usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/include/MemBuf.h
/usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/include/RInside.h
/usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/include/RInsideCommon.h
/usr/lib64/R/library/RInside/include/RInsideConfig.h



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: 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 file not included in the tarball and not included in the rpm.
Please get this to upstream's attention


[x]: 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)", "Unknown or generated". 76 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in

/home/mukundan/ownCloud/misc_pkgs/pkg_reviews/1305336-R-RInside/licensecheck.txt


---> looks fine.


[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.

---> See above.

[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package 

[Bug 1277484] Review Request: php-nette - Nette Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277484



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-nette-2.3.9-1.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-2016-8a21d82c75

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1277484] Review Request: php-nette - Nette Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277484



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-nette-2.3.9-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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-d9c8a9ad7f

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1307130] Review Request: mkdocs-basic-theme - MkDocs Basic Theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307130



--- Comment #5 from William Moreno  ---
Spec URL:
https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/mkdocs-basic-theme.spec
SRPM URL:
https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/mkdocs-basic-theme-1.0.1-2.fc24.src.rpm

---
Update requires

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1298180] Review Request: python-libcnml - a CNML parser library for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298180



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-libcnml-0.9.4-1.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 1298180] Review Request: python-libcnml - a CNML parser library for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298180

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-02-22 20:25:11



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1301268] Review Request: python-netdiff - Python library for parsing network topology data (eg: dynamic routing protocols, NetJSON, CNML) and detect changes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301268
Bug 1301268 depends on bug 1298180, which changed state.

Bug 1298180 Summary: Review Request: python-libcnml - a CNML parser library for 
Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298180

   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 1305333] Review Request: R-highlight - R Syntax Highlighter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305333



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
R-highlight-0.4.7-1.fc23, R-inline-0.3.14-1.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 1305334] Review Request: R-inline - Functions to Inline C, C++, Fortran Function Calls from R

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305334



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
R-highlight-0.4.7-1.fc23, R-inline-0.3.14-1.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 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - Transactional Embedded Database Engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793



--- Comment #8 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
paulohrpinheiro's scratch build of unqlite-1.1.6-4.fc23.src.rpm for f23
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13099781

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1299146] Review Request: python-epub - Python library for reading EPUB files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299146



--- Comment #5 from Filip Szymański  ---
Spec URL: https://fszymanski.fedorapeople.org/python-epub/python-epub.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fszymanski.fedorapeople.org/python-epub/python-epub-0.5.2-2.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

[Bug 1310901] Review Request: libmodsecurity- A library that loads/interprets rules written in the ModSecurity SecRules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310901



--- Comment #1 from Athmane Madjoudj  ---
Notes:

- There's couple of issues with a workaround in the spec that were reported
upstream

- Libinjection  is supposed to be bundled (same as with mod_security 2.x):
https://github.com/client9/libinjection#embedding

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310901] New: Review Request: libmodsecurity- A library that loads/interprets rules written in the ModSecurity SecRules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310901

Bug ID: 1310901
   Summary: Review Request: libmodsecurity- A library that
loads/interprets rules written in the ModSecurity
SecRules
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: athma...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://athmane.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/libmodsecurity.spec
SRPM URL:
https://athmane.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/libmodsecurity-3.0-0.gitf44143.fc23.src.rpm
Description:
Libmodsecurity is one component of the ModSecurity v3 project.
The library codebase serves as an interface to ModSecurity Connectors 
taking in web traffic and applying traditional ModSecurity processing.
In general, it provides the capability to load/interpret rules written 
in the ModSecurity SecRules format and apply them to HTTP content provided
by your application via Connectors.

Fedora Account System Username: athmane

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - Transactional Embedded Database Engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793



--- Comment #7 from Paulo Henrique Rodrigues Pinheiro  ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #6)
> A couple of other things to note, the summary in this review request should
> match what's in the spec file.
> 
> The best "one-liner" I've seen is actually in the description of the github
> project, "Transactional Embedded Database Engine"
> 
> Also, when making updates per my (or anyone else's) feedback, it's customary
> to bump the release and add what you changed to the changelog. That also
> makes it easy when you update the SPEC and SRPM links as you can just paste
> the contents of the changelog here.

I changed the package and ticket summary, an put all changes in changelog.

It is good, or can it be improved?

Thank you, the day is not over yet and I learned a lot already!!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310863] Review Request: nodejs-duplexer2 - Like duplexer but using streams3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310863

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||t...@compton.nu
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes  ---
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". 3 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1310863-nodejs-
 duplexer2/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
 Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: 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 1307130] Review Request: mkdocs-basic-theme - MkDocs Basic Theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307130



--- Comment #4 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
williamjmorenor's scratch build of mkdocs-basic-theme-1.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm for
f23 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13099491

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1299146] Review Request: python-epub - Python library for reading EPUB files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299146



--- Comment #4 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
fszymanski's scratch build of python-epub-0.5.2-2.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13099451

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310859] Review Request: nodejs-beeper - Make your terminal beep

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310859

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||t...@compton.nu
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes  ---
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". 3 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1310859
 -nodejs-beeper/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[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 

[Bug 1307130] Review Request: mkdocs-basic-theme - MkDocs Basic Theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307130



--- Comment #3 from William Moreno  ---
Looking the build info requieres python(abi) == 3.5 if not a bloquer 

https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9389/13099389/build.log

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310853] Review Request: nodejs-sparkles - Namespaced global event emitter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310853

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||t...@compton.nu
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1310853
 -nodejs-sparkles/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
 Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: 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 1307130] Review Request: mkdocs-basic-theme - MkDocs Basic Theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307130



--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
williamjmorenor's scratch build of mkdocs-basic-theme-1.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm for
rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13099388

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1309691] Review Request: hid-replay - debug tools for HID devices

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309691

Peter Hutterer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #7 from Peter Hutterer  ---
Package is APPROVED 

Package Review
==

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

= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "*No
 copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 62 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/whot/tmp/2016-02-23-Tue/1309691-hid-replay/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in hid-
 replay-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[-]: Description and summary 

[Bug 1309691] Review Request: hid-replay - debug tools for HID devices

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309691



--- Comment #6 from Peter Hutterer  ---
Note for the archives, the spec from comment 4 was silently amended on request
to list GPLv2+ as license only since the license field applies to the binary,
the source licenses don't matter here. Review below is for the updated spec
file.

also forgot to answer to this:
(In reply to Benjamin Tissoires from comment #2)
> Provides:
> Should I also provide hid-recorder?

No, Provides is only necessary when you are providing contents from another
package and you have a potential conflict.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - Transactional Embedded Database Engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793

Paulo Henrique Rodrigues Pinheiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: unqlite -   |Review Request: unqlite -
   |embedded key/value  |Transactional Embedded
   |databasse/engine|Database Engine



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310886] New: Review Request: notary - A server and client for running and interacting with trusted collections

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310886

Bug ID: 1310886
   Summary: Review Request: notary - A server and client for
running and interacting with trusted collections
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: m...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/mitr/notary/notary.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/mitr/notary/notary-0.1-1.20160219git8a5c8c0.fc24.src.rpm
Description: A server and client for running and interacting with trusted
collections
Fedora Account System Username: mitr

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1277484] Review Request: php-nette - Nette Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277484

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-nette-2.3.9-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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-2016-22d9369b13

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - embedded key/value databasse/engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793



--- Comment #6 from Richard Shaw  ---
A couple of other things to note, the summary in this review request should
match what's in the spec file.

The best "one-liner" I've seen is actually in the description of the github
project, "Transactional Embedded Database Engine"

Also, when making updates per my (or anyone else's) feedback, it's customary to
bump the release and add what you changed to the changelog. That also makes it
easy when you update the SPEC and SRPM links as you can just paste the contents
of the changelog here.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310873] Review Request: rubygem-async_sinatra - A Sinatra plugin to provide convenience whilst performing asynchronous responses inside of the Sinatra framework running under async webservers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310873



--- Comment #1 from greg.helli...@gmail.com ---
I updated the files to execute tests, as all the packages are available on
Fedora 24. My initial dev work was on a CentOS box where Sinatra is not yet
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 1310873] New: Review Request: rubygem-async_sinatra - A Sinatra plugin to provide convenience whilst performing asynchronous responses inside of the Sinatra framework running under async webserve

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310873

Bug ID: 1310873
   Summary: Review Request: rubygem-async_sinatra - A Sinatra
plugin to provide convenience whilst performing
asynchronous responses inside of the Sinatra framework
running under async webservers
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: greg.helli...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/rubygem-async_sinatra/rubygem-async_sinatra.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/rubygem-async_sinatra/rubygem-async_sinatra-1.2.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: A Sinatra plugin to provide convenience whilst performing
asynchronous
responses inside of the Sinatra framework running under async webservers.
To properly utilise this package, some knowledge of EventMachine and/or
asynchronous patterns is recommended.
Currently, supporting servers include:
* Thin
* Rainbows
* Zbatery.

Fedora Account System Username: greghellings

There are a number of BRs that are commented out. Those are dependencies for
the test process, and there are some that are not yet packaged. If those get
packaged, then we can uncomment that and add the tests in.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - embedded key/value databasse/engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793



--- Comment #5 from Paulo Henrique Rodrigues Pinheiro  ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #4)
> (In reply to Paulo Henrique Rodrigues Pinheiro from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #2)
> (...)
> > After this, to "silent" rpmlint, I put a strip in make install.
> 
> Not sure what is going on here, I removed the strip command and get a usable
> debuginfo package.

Some issue in my config. In spec I put this line:

%debug_package


And now I get the debuginfo package.



> > > 3c. Since a readme file is provided it should be included in the base
> > > package with %doc.
> > 
> > There's no README.md, only license.txt...
> 
> I just noticed that, I was looking at it in github where there is one. Has
> there just not been a release since it was added?

The stable version is only on site. The github is "just for fun", according
upstream devs. New features are "frozzen" by now.


> Also, just playing around a bit with the Makefile, after removing the strip
> command I added a symbolic link to the library to go in the -devel package:
> 
> ln -rs $(LIBDIR)/$(LIBNAME) $(LIBDIR)/libunqlite.so
> 
> Then added to the spec:
> 
> %files devel
> %{_includedir}/unqlite.h
> %{_libdir}/libunqlite.so
> 
> This is typically needed as a project using this for a dependency wouldn't
> necessarily know about the soversion.

OK


Thanks, now it's 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 1303649] Review Request: perl-Tie-Sub - Tying a subroutine, function or method to a hash

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303649



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Tie-Sub-1.001-1.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 1305333] Review Request: R-highlight - R Syntax Highlighter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305333

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-02-22 15:50:08



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1305333] Review Request: R-highlight - R Syntax Highlighter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305333



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
R-highlight-0.4.7-1.fc22, R-inline-0.3.14-1.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 1305335] Review Request: R-Rcpp - Seamless R and C++ Integration

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305335
Bug 1305335 depends on bug 1305333, which changed state.

Bug 1305333 Summary: Review Request: R-highlight - R Syntax Highlighter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305333

   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 1305334] Review Request: R-inline - Functions to Inline C, C++, Fortran Function Calls from R

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305334

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-02-22 15:50:04



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1305335] Review Request: R-Rcpp - Seamless R and C++ Integration

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305335
Bug 1305335 depends on bug 1305334, which changed state.

Bug 1305334 Summary: Review Request: R-inline - Functions to Inline C, C++, 
Fortran Function Calls from R
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305334

   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 1305334] Review Request: R-inline - Functions to Inline C, C++, Fortran Function Calls from R

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305334



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
R-highlight-0.4.7-1.fc22, R-inline-0.3.14-1.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 1310839] Review Request: nodejs-is-valid-glob - Return true if a value is a valid glob pattern or patterns

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310839

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||t...@compton.nu
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes  ---
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". 3 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1310839
 -nodejs-is-valid-glob/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[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]: 

[Bug 1310838] Review Request: nodejs-streamtest - Streams test library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310838

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||t...@compton.nu
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes  ---
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". 3 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1310838
 -nodejs-streamtest/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[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 

[Bug 1310869] New: Review Request: python-zanata2fedmsg - A web app bridging zanata webhooks to fedmsg

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310869

Bug ID: 1310869
   Summary: Review Request: python-zanata2fedmsg - A web app
bridging zanata webhooks to fedmsg
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: rb...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org




Spec URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-zanata2fedmsg.spec
SRPM URL:
http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-zanata2fedmsg-0.2-1.fc23.src.rpm

Description:
A web app bridging zanata webhooks to fedmsg

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310869] Review Request: python-zanata2fedmsg - A web app bridging zanata webhooks to fedmsg

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310869



--- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean  ---
This package built on koji: 
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13097899

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310690] Review Request: nodejs-is-generator - Check whether a value is a generator or generator function

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310690

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes  ---
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". 3 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1310690
 -nodejs-is-generator/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[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 

[Bug 1310690] Review Request: nodejs-is-generator - Check whether a value is a generator or generator function

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310690

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||t...@compton.nu
Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
   |noejs-is-generator - Check  |nodejs-is-generator - Check
   |whether a value is a|whether a value is a
   |generator or generator  |generator or generator
   |function|function



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310863] Review Request: nodejs-duplexer2 - Like duplexer but using streams3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310863

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 1310863] New: Review Request: nodejs-duplexer2 - Like duplexer but using streams3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310863

Bug ID: 1310863
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-duplexer2 - Like duplexer but
using streams3
   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-duplexer2/nodejs-duplexer2.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-duplexer2/nodejs-duplexer2-0.1.4-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Like duplexer but using streams3
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 1310859] Review Request: nodejs-beeper - Make your terminal beep

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310859

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 1310859] New: Review Request: nodejs-beeper - Make your terminal beep

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310859

Bug ID: 1310859
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-beeper - Make your terminal
beep
   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-beeper/nodejs-beeper.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-beeper/nodejs-beeper-1.1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Make your terminal beep
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 1310853] Review Request: nodejs-sparkles - Namespaced global event emitter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310853

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 1310853] New: Review Request: nodejs-sparkles - Namespaced global event emitter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310853

Bug ID: 1310853
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-sparkles - Namespaced global
event emitter
   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-sparkles/nodejs-sparkles.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-sparkles/nodejs-sparkles-1.0.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Namespaced global event emitter
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 1310339] Review Request: nodejs-output-file-sync - Synchronously write a file and create its ancestor directories if needed

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310339



--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-output-file-sync

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310375] Review Request: nodejs-qunitjs - An easy-to-use JavaScript Unit Testing framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310375



--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-qunitjs

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310607] Review Request: qutebrowser - A keyboard-driven, vim-like browser based on PyQt5 and QtWebKit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310607



--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/qutebrowser

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1308657] Review Request: nodejs-thenify - Promisify a callback-based function

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308657



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310374] Review Request: nodejs-is-number - Returns true if the value is a number

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310374



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-is-number

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1309359] Review Request: nodejs-type-check - Allows you to check the types of JavaScript values at runtime

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309359



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310371] Review Request: nodejs-clone-stats - Safely clone node's fs.Stats instances without losing their class methods

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310371



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-clone-stats

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310370] Review Request: nodejs-extend-shallow - Extend an object with the properties of additional objects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310370



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-extend-shallow

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310359] Review Request: nodejs-json-stable-stringify - Deterministic JSON.stringify() with custom sorting

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310359



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-json-stable-stringify

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310342] Review Request: nodejs-terst - A JavaScript testing component with a terse syntax

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310342



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-terst

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310689] Review Request: nodejs-safecb - Normalize callback arguments

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310689

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||t...@compton.nu
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes  ---
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". 3 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1310689
 -nodejs-safecb/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[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 

[Bug 1310670] Review Request: nodejs-cli-spinner - A simple spinner

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310670

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||t...@compton.nu
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes  ---
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". 3 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1310670
 -nodejs-cli-spinner/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 92160 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[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]: 

[Bug 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - embedded key/value databasse/engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793



--- Comment #4 from Richard Shaw  ---
(In reply to Paulo Henrique Rodrigues Pinheiro from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #2)
> 
> > 2. In %build, why is the debug package being disabled? Typically this is
> > only permitted for noarch packages where it doesn't produce anything useful.
> 
> I followed the directions of the documentation* to see if it was a recurring
> problem, but could not make the debug package be generated.
> 
> * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo?rd=Packaging/Debuginfo
> 
> After this, to "silent" rpmlint, I put a strip in make install.

Not sure what is going on here, I removed the strip command and get a usable
debuginfo package.


> > 3a. A license file only needs to be included in one package assuming the
> > other requires it (in this case -devel requires the base package)
> 
> OK, I put this because rpmlint give-me "no-documentation" :)

Yes, it's just warning you, since upstream doesn't provide any that's OK.


> > 3c. Since a readme file is provided it should be included in the base
> > package with %doc.
> 
> There's no README.md, only license.txt...

I just noticed that, I was looking at it in github where there is one. Has
there just not been a release since it was added?


> Can I leave rpmlint with these warnings? My output:
> 
> [paulohrpinheiro@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint unqlite.spec
> ../RPMS/x86_64/unqlite-*
> unqlite.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> unqlite-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Yes, that's OK.

Also, just playing around a bit with the Makefile, after removing the strip
command I added a symbolic link to the library to go in the -devel package:

ln -rs $(LIBDIR)/$(LIBNAME) $(LIBDIR)/libunqlite.so

Then added to the spec:

%files devel
%{_includedir}/unqlite.h
%{_libdir}/libunqlite.so

This is typically needed as a project using this for a dependency wouldn't
necessarily know about the soversion.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310463] Review Request: nodejs-package-json - Get the package.json of a package from the npm registry

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310463

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes  ---
That looks much better - the tests pass fine now ;-)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - embedded key/value databasse/engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793



--- Comment #3 from Paulo Henrique Rodrigues Pinheiro  ---
(In reply to Richard Shaw from comment #2)
> A quick spec review on my lunch break...
> 

> 1. rpmbuild doesn't care but typically %{pre,post,postun,etc} would be after
> %install

OK


> 2. In %build, why is the debug package being disabled? Typically this is
> only permitted for noarch packages where it doesn't produce anything useful.

I followed the directions of the documentation* to see if it was a recurring
problem, but could not make the debug package be generated.

* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo?rd=Packaging/Debuginfo

After this, to "silent" rpmlint, I put a strip in make install.


> 3a. A license file only needs to be included in one package assuming the
> other requires it (in this case -devel requires the base package)

OK, I put this because rpmlint give-me "no-documentation" :)


> 3b. License files should use the %license macro rather than %doc.
> 
> 3c. Since a readme file is provided it should be included in the base
> package with %doc.

There's no README.md, only license.txt...


> So all that to say the base package should be updated to:
> %license license.txt
> %doc README.md


Can I leave rpmlint with these warnings? My output:

[paulohrpinheiro@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint unqlite.spec
../RPMS/x86_64/unqlite-*
unqlite.x86_64: W: no-documentation
unqlite-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.


> 4. Typo in the description at the beginning of the -devel package.
OK


Thank you. The files are updated in original links:

Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paulohrpinheiro/fedora-rpm-unqlite/master/unqlite.spec

SRPM URL:
https://github.com/paulohrpinheiro/fedora-rpm-unqlite/raw/master/unqlite-1.1.6-1.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 1282063] Review Request: xxhsum - Extremely fast hash algorithm

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282063



--- Comment #18 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
gil's scratch build of xxhsum-0.5.0-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13096674

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1268716] Review Request: cjdns - IP6 VPN with crypto address allocation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268716



--- Comment #31 from Jared Smith  ---
The package is coming along nicely, but isn't yet ready for approval.  Here's
my running list of things that should be addressed:

- Fix the license tag to be "GPLv3"
- Permissions on files are set properly.
  Note: See rpmlint output
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: make
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
  in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
  for the package is included in %license.
  Note: Cannot find bencode.py.LICENSE.txt in rpm(s)
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- The main package should own the %{_libdir}/cjdns directory
- Do you need FPC exception approval for bundled nacl and libuv libraries?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1309703] Review Request: libratbag - a library to configure programmable mice

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703



--- Comment #3 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
bentiss's scratch build of libratbag-0.2-1.fc23.src.rpm for f23-candidate
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13096326

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1309703] Review Request: libratbag - a library to configure programmable mice

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309703



--- Comment #2 from Benjamin Tissoires  ---
Updating the bug with my latest changes, I will need more upstream first before
actually have a Fedora-ready package.

Spec URL:
https://people.freedesktop.org/~tissoire/libratbag-rpm-v2/libratbag.spec
SRPM URL:
https://people.freedesktop.org/~tissoire/libratbag-rpm-v2/libratbag-0.2-1.fc23.src.rpm


(In reply to Peter Hutterer from comment #1)
> summary should be capitalized correctly, it's currently a mix of upper and
> lowercase

done

> no blank line after Summary

removed

> That Source0 is a bit odd, looks like
> https://github.com/libratbag/libratbag/archive/v0.2.tar.gz is sufficient?

I used the ps2emu rename Lyude is making, but the way I do it in hid-replay is
actually simpler:
https://github.com/libratbag/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

> BuildRequires: mtdev-devel?

oops, removed

> IMO we should package libratbag/liblur as separate packages

OK. I tried to make it in this version:
liblur gets its own package (-n in %package). It feels weird to not have a
separate package for it, so I'd like some input here.
An other solution is to not use the '-n' which gives libratbag-liblur as
package name, which is less than optimal.

> Typo in the last changelog msg, but best to compress them into a single 
> "Initial package" with a -1 release anyway.

OK, done.

> rpmlint says:
> libratbag.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0:
> 0001-tools-remove-no-install-flag-for-lur-command.patch

That's because I use the "git am %{patches}" snippet :(

Anyway, I think I'll just release a new version of libratbag when upstream adds
proper versioning for liblur and documentation of the 2 tools we provide
(lur-command and ratbag-command).

Also, should I also build and ship the documentation we generate? (in a -doc
package?)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1270317] Review Request: lz4-java - LZ4 compression for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317



--- Comment #12 from gil cattaneo  ---
FPC ticket was closed:
Resolution:  nothingtodo
"
Comment:

 FPC no longer has anything to do with bundling.  Please see the current
 guidelines:


https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication_of_system_libraries

 Please make sure to add the necessary "Provides: bundled(xxHash) =
 version" to your package.
"

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310839] Review Request: nodejs-is-valid-glob - Return true if a value is a valid glob pattern or patterns

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310839

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
   |nodejs-is-valid-glob -  |nodejs-is-valid-glob -
   ||Return true if a value is a
   ||valid glob pattern or
   ||patterns



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1286885] Review Request: orthorobot - A perspective based puzzle game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286885



--- Comment #9 from Jeremy Newton  ---
No worries, the packaging guidelines documentation is pretty large and can be
hard to keep track of.

Although, it's probably worth noting that manpages and appdata aren't required
for all packages, just a "nice to have" (hence the word "SHOULD" instead of
"MUST" in the packaging guidelines).

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Manpages
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData#AppData_files

Also, note that it's fine to check appdata in either %install or %check,
although I'm unsure if there's an appdata equivalent to desktop-file-install.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData#app-data-validate_usage

Updated, with no more rpmlint output:

Spec URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42480493/orthorobot.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42480493/orthorobot-1.1-3.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 1310839] Review Request: nodejs-is-valid-glob -

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310839

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 1310839] New: Review Request: nodejs-is-valid-glob -

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310839

Bug ID: 1310839
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-is-valid-glob -
   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-is-valid-glob/nodejs-is-valid-glob.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-is-valid-glob/nodejs-is-valid-glob-0.3.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Return true if a value is a valid glob pattern or patterns
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 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - embedded key/value databasse/engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793

Richard Shaw  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||hobbes1...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Richard Shaw  ---
A quick spec review on my lunch break...

1. rpmbuild doesn't care but typically %{pre,post,postun,etc} would be after
%install

2. In %build, why is the debug package being disabled? Typically this is only
permitted for noarch packages where it doesn't produce anything useful.

3a. A license file only needs to be included in one package assuming the other
requires it (in this case -devel requires the base package)

3b. License files should use the %license macro rather than %doc.

3c. Since a readme file is provided it should be included in the base package
with %doc.

So all that to say the base package should be updated to:
%license license.txt
%doc README.md

4. Typo in the description at the beginning of the -devel package.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310838] New: Review Request: nodejs-streamtest - Streams test library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310838

Bug ID: 1310838
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-streamtest - Streams test
library
   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-streamtest/nodejs-streamtest.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-streamtest/nodejs-streamtest-1.2.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Streams test library
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 1310838] Review Request: nodejs-streamtest - Streams test library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310838

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 1309782] Review Request: bugyou_plugins - Plugins and Services for Bugyou

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309782

Ralph Bean  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rb...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean  ---
Some observations:


1)  The licensing here is inconsistent and needs to be resolved upstream.

The specfile states: GPLv3.
commands/cntrl.py has LGPLv2+.
The license file states AGPL.

2)  The sites-packages/bugyou/ directory itself is un-owned by the package. 
The package owns the py files inside, but not the directory.  It should own the
directory.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1270317] Review Request: lz4-java - LZ4 compression for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317



--- Comment #11 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Tomas Repik from comment #10)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #9)
> > see
> > https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:
> > No_Bundled_Libraries=406058#Requirement_if_you_bundle
> 
> But you still need the FPC exception right?

The guideline was recently changed ...
Open FPC ticket (Bundled Library Exception)
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/603

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310375] Review Request: nodejs-qunitjs - An easy-to-use JavaScript Unit Testing framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310375

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #6 from Tom Hughes  ---
Great. Looks good now.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310375] Review Request: nodejs-qunitjs - An easy-to-use JavaScript Unit Testing framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310375



--- Comment #5 from Jared Smith  ---
Yeah -- I forgot that the --build flag existed for that macro.

Updated to use the macro instead:

Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-qunitjs/nodejs-qunitjs.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-qunitjs/nodejs-qunitjs-1.21.0-3.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 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - embedded key/value databasse/engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793



--- Comment #1 from Paulo Henrique Rodrigues Pinheiro  ---
And, please, this is my first package, and I need a sponsor. Thanks!

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

[Bug 1310463] Review Request: nodejs-package-json - Get the package.json of a package from the npm registry

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310463



--- Comment #3 from Jared Smith  ---
Oops -- you're right -- I had the wrong test.js file in the package. 

Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-package-json/nodejs-package-json.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-package-json/nodejs-package-json-2.3.1-2.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 1295456] Review Request: python-urwidtrees - Tree Widget Container API for the urwid toolkit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295456

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #14 from William Moreno  ---
Package Aproved
===

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310793] Review Request: unqlite - embedded key/value databasse/engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793

Paulo Henrique Rodrigues Pinheiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1307238] Review Request: gdouros-avdira-fonts - A font based on elements created by Demetrios Damilas (late 15th c.)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307238

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1307238] Review Request: gdouros-avdira-fonts - A font based on elements created by Demetrios Damilas (late 15th c.)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307238



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
gdouros-avdira-fonts-6.31-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5ab85da278

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310796] New: Review Request: python-etcd - a python client for etcd

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310796

Bug ID: 1310796
   Summary: Review Request: python-etcd - a python client for etcd
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: mbar...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/python-etcd/python-etcd.spec
SRPM URL:
https://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/python-etcd/python-etcd-0.4.3-1.fc23.src.rpm

Description:

This is a client library for accessing and manipulating etcd contents from
Python.  Needed by Project Atomic.

Fedora Account System Username: mbarnes

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310793] New: Review Request: unqlite - embedded key/value databasse/engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310793

Bug ID: 1310793
   Summary: Review Request: unqlite - embedded key/value
databasse/engine
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: pa...@sysincloud.it
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paulohrpinheiro/fedora-rpm-unqlite/master/unqlite.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/paulohrpinheiro/fedora-rpm-unqlite/raw/master/unqlite-1.1.6-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description: 

Hello!

I just pack the unqlite library and would like you to execute one review to add
it to the Fedora packages. Already there are bindings for rust, perl and python
that always include the source code for the library in these packages.

From http://unqlite.org:

"UnQLite is a self-contained C library without dependency. It requires very
minimal support from external libraries or from the operating system. This
makes it well suited for use in embedded devices that lack the support
infrastructure of a desktop computer. This also makes UnQLite appropriate for
use within applications that need to run without modification on a wide variety
of computers of varying configurations."

Thank you!

Fedora Account System Username: paulohrpinheiro

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1306968] Review Request: php-mock - PHP-Mock can mock built-in PHP functions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306968

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1306968] Review Request: php-mock - PHP-Mock can mock built-in PHP functions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306968



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-mock-1.0.1-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e1c6e043cf

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1245351] Review Request: ps2emu-tools - PS/2 recording/playback tools for userio

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245351

Benjamin Tissoires  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||btiss...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(i...@cicku.me)



--- Comment #11 from Benjamin Tissoires  ---
Bumping this.

Christopher, Lyude was working with me on this project, and I'd like to see
this package in Fedora. Is it OK if I take the review from you and continue
doing it ? I will then mentor Lyude for the rest of the Fedora processes.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1310375] Review Request: nodejs-qunitjs - An easy-to-use JavaScript Unit Testing framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310375



--- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes  ---
Is there a reason for constructing node_modules manually in %build instead of
use "%nodejs_symlink_deps --build" to do it?

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

[Bug 1307238] Review Request: gdouros-avdira-fonts - A font based on elements created by Demetrios Damilas (late 15th c.)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307238



--- Comment #15 from Alexander Ploumistos  ---
(In reply to Jon Ciesla from comment #13)
> Package request has been approved:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/gdouros-avdira-fonts

Thanks!

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