[Bug 1328968] Review Request: capnproto - A data interchange format and capability-based RPC system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328968



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
capnproto-0.5.3-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-78c0114b50

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

[Bug 1331923] Review Request: python-jinja2-27 - EPEL6 only jinja-2.7 package

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331923

Tomohiro ICHIKAWA  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
  Flags||fedora-review?




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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1331923] New: Review Request: python-jinja2-27 - EPEL6 only jinja-2.7 package

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331923

Bug ID: 1331923
   Summary: Review Request: python-jinja2-27 - EPEL6 only
jinja-2.7 package
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: torom...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://github.com/toromoti/rpm-python-jinja2-27/raw/master/SPECS/python-jinja2-27.spec

SRPM URL:
https://github.com/toromoti/rpm-python-jinja2-27/raw/master/SRPMS/python-jinja2-27-2.7.2-1.el6.src.rpm

Description:
In EPEL6, Jinja package already exist as "python-jinja" or "python-jinja2-26".
However, In the same way as EPEL7, We need 2.7 that have many functions than
2.6.

Jinja2 is a template engine written in pure Python.  It provides a
Django inspired non-XML syntax but supports inline expressions and an
optional sandboxed environment.

Fedora Account System Username: toromoti

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

[Bug 1322846] Review Request: SuperLUMT - Single precision real SuperLU routines for shared memory parallel machines

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1322846



--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
SuperLUMT-3.1.0-5.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1266258] Review Request: python-urlobject - A utility class for manipulating URLs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266258



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-urlobject-2.4.0-6.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1322846] Review Request: SuperLUMT - Single precision real SuperLU routines for shared memory parallel machines

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1322846



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
SuperLUMT-3.1.0-5.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1330856] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix Gtk Theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330856



--- Comment #6 from Simone Caronni  ---
If you're not planning to support RHEL 6 please remove the "Group:" tag (not
required but not mandatory to be removed).

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

[Bug 1328968] Review Request: capnproto - A data interchange format and capability-based RPC system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328968



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
capnproto-0.5.3-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e8d746cca5

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

[Bug 1328968] Review Request: capnproto - A data interchange format and capability-based RPC system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328968



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
capnproto-0.5.3-2.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-2016-4d440c2df0

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

[Bug 1330861] Review Request: numix-icon-theme-circle - Numix Project circle icon theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330861

Simone Caronni  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



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

[Bug 1330858] Review Request: numix-icon-theme - Numix Project icon theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330858

Simone Caronni  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



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

[Bug 1331914] Review Request: csvjdbc - Java JDBC driver for reading comma-separated-value files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331914



--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo  ---
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13858865

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

[Bug 1330856] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix Gtk Theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330856



--- Comment #5 from Simone Caronni  ---
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
> found: "Unknown or generated". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed
> output of licensecheck in /home/slaanesh/1330856-numix-gtk-
> theme/licensecheck.txt

That's ok, you can ignore it, as long as it's not showing different icons.

> [!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> numix-gtk-theme.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.5.1-2 
> ['2.5.1-2.gitbde0a73.fc23', '2.5.1-2.gitbde0a73']

You should have exactly the same name-version-release tags in the changelog as
the package that you are generating. That is, in this case: 2.5.1-2.gitbde0a73

Please note that actually (next time) when you update the spec file with
"rpmdev-bumpspec" it will actually put the correct tag in the changelog as
required.

> [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.

The directory %{_datadir}/themes is not owned by your package, please add
"filesystem" as requirement. It's always installed, but better be safe than
sorry.

$ rpm -qf /usr/share/themes/
filesystem-3.2-37.fc24.x86_64

> numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Numix is a modern flat 
> theme with a combination of light and dark elements. It supports Gnome, 
> Unity, XFCE and Openbox.

Plase open the text file with an editor and make sure that you have
descriptions cut at 80 columns. As obvious you don't need to have exactly 80
columns but you can just cut before reaching the amount.

> numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang 
> /usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/stick-toggled-pressed.xpm

All the files that are under /usr/share/themes should not be executable. Please
run something like this after the %make_install macro:

find %{buildroot} -name "*.xml" -exec chmod 644 {} \;

Or better fix the Makefile. At the end rpmlint should return no
"script-without-shebang" or "spurious-executable-perm".

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

[Bug 1321687] Review Request: qpid-java - Apache Qpid Java Components

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321687



--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo  ---
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/qpid-java.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/qpid-java-6.0.2-1.fc23.src.rpm

- update to 6.0.2

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13858671

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

[Bug 1331914] Review Request: csvjdbc - Java JDBC driver for reading comma-separated-value files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331914

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1321687




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321687
[Bug 1321687] Review Request: qpid-java - Apache Qpid Java Components
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1321687] Review Request: qpid-java - Apache Qpid Java Components

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321687

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1331914




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331914
[Bug 1331914] Review Request: csvjdbc - Java JDBC driver for reading
comma-separated-value files
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1331914] Review Request: csvjdbc - Java JDBC driver for reading comma-separated-value files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331914

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1331914] New: Review Request: csvjdbc - Java JDBC driver for reading comma-separated-value files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331914

Bug ID: 1331914
   Summary: Review Request: csvjdbc - Java JDBC driver for reading
comma-separated-value files
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: punto...@libero.it
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/csvjdbc.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/csvjdbc-1.0.29-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description:
CsvJdbc is a read-only JDBC driver that uses Comma Separated Value
(CSV) files or DBF files as database tables. It is ideal for
writing data import programs or analyzing log files.

The driver enables a directory or a ZIP file containing CSV or DBF files
to be accessed as though it were a database containing tables. However,
as there is no real database management system behind the scenes,
not all JDBC functionality is available.

Fedora Account System Username: gil

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

[Bug 1330856] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix Gtk Theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330856



--- Comment #4 from Simone Caronni  ---
Rpmlint
---
Checking: numix-gtk-theme-2.5.1-2.gitbde0a73.fc23.noarch.rpm
  numix-gtk-theme-2.5.1-2.gitbde0a73.fc23.src.rpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Numix is a modern flat
theme with a combination of light and dark elements. It supports Gnome, Unity,
XFCE and Openbox.
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.5.1-2
['2.5.1-2.gitbde0a73.fc23', '2.5.1-2.gitbde0a73']
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/stick-toggled-pressed.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/gtk-3.20/scss/_widgets.scss
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/gtk-3.0/scss/_colors.scss
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/hide-inactive.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/maximize-active.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/gtk-3.20/gtk.css
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/gtk-3.0/scss/widgets/_base.scss
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/title-4-active.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/gtk-3.20/scss/_functions.scss
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/maximize-toggled-prelight.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/gtk-3.20/scss/widgets/_toolbar.scss
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/gtk-3.0/scss/widgets/_toggle.scss
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/hide-active.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/stick-active.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/openbox-3/themerc
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/gtk-2.0/gtkrc
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/README.md
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/shade-toggled-pressed.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/gtk-3.0/scss/widgets/_sidebar.scss
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/title-3-inactive.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/gtk-3.0/scss/widgets/_button.scss
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/top-left-inactive.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/title-4-inactive.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/openbox-3/max.xbm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/menu-pressed.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/numix-gtk-theme/CREDITS
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/left-inactive.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/gtk-3.20/scss/widgets/_window.scss
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/stick-pressed.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/gtk-3.0/scss/widgets/_entry.scss
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/themerc
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/bottom-left-inactive.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/bottom-active.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/title-2-inactive.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/LICENSE
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/menu-prelight.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/left-active.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/close-pressed.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/maximize-toggled-inactive.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/title-2-active.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/menu-active.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/stick-prelight.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/maximize-inactive.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/themes/Numix/xfwm4/title-1-active.xpm
numix-gtk-theme.noarch: E: script-without-shebang

[Bug 1327929] Review Request: gimpfx-foundry - Additional plugins for GIMP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327929



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
gimpfx-foundry-2.6.1-5.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-515d081638

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

[Bug 1327929] Review Request: gimpfx-foundry - Additional plugins for GIMP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327929



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
gimpfx-foundry-2.6.1-5.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-7d82f63f92

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

[Bug 1327929] Review Request: gimpfx-foundry - Additional plugins for GIMP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327929



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
gimpfx-foundry-2.6.1-5.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-6103c4ed2e

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

[Bug 1327929] Review Request: gimpfx-foundry - Additional plugins for GIMP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327929



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
gimpfx-foundry-2.6.1-5.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-170517de6b

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

[Bug 1327929] Review Request: gimpfx-foundry - Additional plugins for GIMP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327929

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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327929] Review Request: gimpfx-foundry - Additional plugins for GIMP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327929



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
gimpfx-foundry-2.6.1-5.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-daa1d22236

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

[Bug 1330856] Review Request: numix-gtk-theme - Numix Gtk Theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330856

Simone Caronni  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #3 from Simone Caronni  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Dist tag is present.


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/slaanesh/1330856-numix-gtk-
 theme/licensecheck.txt
[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: 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]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

= 

[Bug 1305996] Review Request: python-pyuv - A Python module which provides an interface to libuv

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305996



--- Comment #13 from Athmane Madjoudj  ---
(In reply to William Moreno from comment #12)
> Package Review
> ==
> 
> 1.
> [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> There is a complete libuv bundled in pyuv-1.2.0/deps/libuv/
> 

Removed, it was not used during the build anyway (system-wide libuv forced
before build steps)

> 2.
> [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> Most of the time with python packages try to get some pkgs from pypi in
> check there are missing build requires (and maybe missing requires) please
> doble check if dowloaded packages are already in Fedora repos, if so,
> include then as buildrequires, if not you must package then firt.
> 

Fixed

> 3.
> There is a doc directory than you can compile to html with python-sphinx and
> include in a doc subpackage.
> 

Fixed

> 4.
> Can these files go to a -devel supackage.
> Unversioned so-files
> 
> python2-pyuv: /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/pyuv/_cpyuv.so
> python3-pyuv: /usr/lib64/python3.4/site-packages/pyuv/_cpyuv.cpython-34m.so
> 

so-files are part of the module itself, if moved 'import pyuv' with fail.

Please find updated SPEC/SRPM:


SPEC: https://athmane.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/python-pyuv.spec
SRPM: https://athmane.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/python-pyuv-1.2.0-6.fc23.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1268771] Review Request: rubygem-grape - A simple Ruby framework for building REST-like APIs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268771
Bug 1268771 depends on bug 1268593, which changed state.

Bug 1268593 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-rack-mount - Stackable dynamic 
tree based Rack router
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268593

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG



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

[Bug 1268593] Review Request: rubygem-rack-mount - Stackable dynamic tree based Rack router

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268593

Ilya Gradina  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed||2016-04-29 20:27:42



--- Comment #10 from Ilya Gradina  ---
package removed: https://github.com/josh/rack-mount

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

[Bug 1268360] Review Request: rubygem-simple_oauth - Simply builds and verifies OAuth headers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268360



--- Comment #5 from Ilya Gradina  ---
Hi all, 
sorry for the long absence.

new SPEC:
https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-simple_oauth.spec
new SRPM:
https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-simple_oauth-0.3.1-2.fc24.src.rpm

- add tests
- few small changes

tests:
***
42 examples, 0 failures, 2 pending
***

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

[Bug 1324960] Review Request: python-deap - Distributed Evolutionary Algorithms in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324960



--- Comment #7 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1325452] Review Request: python-multi_key_dict - Multi-key dictionary implementation in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1325452

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from William Moreno  ---
Looks good, 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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1279104] Review Request: python-pbkdf2 - password-based key derivation in pure Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279104

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|williamjmore...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #6 from William Moreno  ---
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. 
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
OK: The License field in the package spec match the actual license.
OK: The text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %license.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
OK: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
OK: The package must contain code, or permissible content. [17]
OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
OK: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives.

Your package looks good, I will take your review request and become your
sponsor but I want so see some informal reviews before aprobe the package and
sponsor you as package maintainer.

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

[Bug 1264715] Review Request: flacon - Audio File Encoder

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264715



--- Comment #4 from Ilya Gradina  ---
Hi Jiri, txh!)
new SPEC:
https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/flacon/flacon.spec
new SRPM:
https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/flacon/flacon-2.0.1-2.fc24.src.rpm

in runing tests displays an error:
https://paste.fedoraproject.org/361186/61969127/

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

[Bug 1330330] Review Request: golang-tools-godep - Helps build packages reproducibly by fixing their dependencies

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330330

Michael Scherer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||m...@zarb.org
 QA Contact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |m...@zarb.org



--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- why is there a git config call in %check ?

- unowned directories, see review

- package is wrongly named (see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Go#Package_Names for a example)

- see rpmlint for spelling errors
= 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)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated",
 "BSD (2 clause)". 48 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/1330330-golang-
 tools-godep/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of

/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tools/godep/Godeps/_workspace/src/github.com,

/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tools/godep/Godeps/_workspace/src/github.com/kr,
 /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tools/godep/Godeps/_workspace/src,

/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tools/godep/Godeps/_workspace/src/github.com/pmezard,

/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tools/godep/Godeps/_workspace/src/github.com/pmezard
 /go-difflib,

/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tools/godep/Godeps/_workspace/src/golang.org/x/tools,
 /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tools/godep/Godeps,

/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tools/godep/Godeps/_workspace/src/golang.org,
 /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tools/godep/Godeps/_workspace,

/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tools/godep/Godeps/_workspace/src/golang.org/x/tools/go,

/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tools/godep/Godeps/_workspace/src/golang.org/x
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners:

/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tools/godep/Godeps/_workspace/src/github.com/kr,
 /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tools/godep/Godeps/_workspace/src,

/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tools/godep/Godeps/_workspace/src/golang.org/x/tools,

/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tools/godep/Godeps/_workspace/src/github.com,
 /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tools/godep/Godeps,

/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tools/godep/Godeps/_workspace/src/golang.org/x/tools/go,

/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tools/godep/Godeps/_workspace/src/golang.org,
 /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tools/godep/Godeps/_workspace,

/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tools/godep/Godeps/_workspace/src/golang.org/x,
 /usr/share/gocode, /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com,

/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tools/godep/Godeps/_workspace/src/github.com/pmezard,
 /usr/share/gocode/src,

/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tools/godep/Godeps/_workspace/src/github.com/pmezard
 /go-difflib
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tools(godep-devel),
 /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/tools/godep(godep-devel)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 40960 

[Bug 1269651] Review Request: nodejs-on-finished - Execute a callback when a HTTP request closes, finishes, or errors

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269651



--- Comment #3 from Troy Dawson  ---
Ping - Is anything happening with this 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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1269658] Review Request: nodejs-mime-db - Database of all mime types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269658



--- Comment #4 from Troy Dawson  ---
Ping - Is anything happening with this 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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1273136] Review Request: nodejs-deeper - JavaScript "deep equality" test

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273136



--- Comment #3 from Troy Dawson  ---
Ping - Is anything happening with this 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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1116021] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-prof - a fast ruby profiler

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116021

Troy Dawson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
 CC|tdaw...@redhat.com  |
   Assignee|tdaw...@redhat.com  |nob...@fedoraproject.org



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

[Bug 1116021] Review Request: rubygem-ruby-prof - a fast ruby profiler

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116021



--- Comment #7 from Troy Dawson  ---
I'm dropping being a reviewer of this package, and I recommend it be closed
incase someone else wants to create this package.  There has been too long
without any response from the original packager.

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

[Bug 1116024] Review Request: rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions - Extensions for the Elasticsearch Rubygem.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116024



--- Comment #5 from Troy Dawson  ---
I'm dropping being a reviewer of this package, and I recommend it be closed
incase someone else wants to create this package.  There has been too long
without any response from the original packager.

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

[Bug 1116024] Review Request: rubygem-elasticsearch-extensions - Extensions for the Elasticsearch Rubygem.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116024

Troy Dawson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
 CC|tdaw...@redhat.com  |
   Assignee|tdaw...@redhat.com  |nob...@fedoraproject.org



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

[Bug 1324590] Review Request: hfi1-psm - Intel PSM Libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590



--- Comment #65 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
I have just pushed changes to the 10.1 branch of github that eliminate the
40-psm.rules file from the Fedora distribution.

Can you please re-review?

If you pull the branch in a sandbox, and run the makesrpm.sh script, it should
yield a src rpm with version 10.1.9, as in:

libpsm2-10.1.9-1.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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1331818] Review Request: singularity - Portable application stack packaging and runtime utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331818

Orion Poplawski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||or...@cora.nwra.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|or...@cora.nwra.com



--- Comment #1 from Orion Poplawski  ---
Initial comments:

- Drop the blank line after %description
- No more need for %{?_licensedir}

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

[Bug 1324960] Review Request: python-deap - Distributed Evolutionary Algorithms in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324960

John Dulaney  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #6 from John Dulaney  ---
Nothing in the rpmlint output, everything looks good.


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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1324960] Review Request: python-deap - Distributed Evolutionary Algorithms in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324960



--- Comment #5 from John Dulaney  ---

This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text



Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: 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:
[ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
 Note: Using prebuilt packages
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v3 or
 later)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)",
 "Unknown or generated". 55 files have unknown license. Detailed output
 of licensecheck in /home/jdulaney/rpmbuild/review-python-
 deap/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File 

[Bug 1328968] Review Request: capnproto - A data interchange format and capability-based RPC system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328968

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
capnproto-0.5.3-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-c023e41c9b

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

[Bug 1326217] Review Request: google-noto-emoji-fonts - Google Noto Emoji Fonts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326217

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
google-noto-emoji-fonts-20160406-4.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24
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-d61f328b5b

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

[Bug 1328062] Review Request: jetbrains-annotations - IntelliJ IDEA Annotations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328062

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
jetbrains-annotations-15.0-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-2016-5a560d7399

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

[Bug 1331818] New: Review Request: singularity - Portable application stack packaging and runtime utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331818

Bug ID: 1331818
   Summary: Review Request: singularity - Portable application
stack packaging and runtime utility
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: d.l...@liverpool.ac.uk
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/singularity.spec
SRPM URL:
https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/singularity-1.0-6.e7409ff5.el6.src.rpm
Description: 
Singularity is a portable application stack packaging and runtime utility.

There are several methods to implement portable application stacks at
present. Among them are containers and virtual machines. When using these
solutions to package a single application (or application stack), one ends
up having to manage the entire operating system overhead (security, updates,
size/bulk, etc..) just to distribute a single application or workflow. While
virtual machines and containers have strong usage benefits, application
portability and distribution is not an efficient use of these technologies.

Singularity works on a completely different perspective. Contrary to building
and managing an entire operating system environment (for the sake of
portability and reproducibility of an application stack), Singularity works
on the opposite premise. By configuration of an application stack spec via a
configuration file, coupled with automatic dependency resolution to achieve
portability, Singularity can create minimalistic singlet "app" which can
easily be copied from system to system and run using Singularity on different
systems.
Fedora Account System Username: loveshack

Builds: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/loveshack/livhpc/build/181964/
and https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/loveshack/livhpc/build/181966/

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

[Bug 1315801] Review Request: rubygem-nio4r - New IO for Ruby

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315801



--- Comment #4 from Jun Aruga  ---
Just reminder. Waiting the response. :)

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

[Bug 1324590] Review Request: hfi1-psm - Intel PSM Libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590



--- Comment #64 from paul.j.re...@intel.com ---
(In reply to Michal Schmidt from comment #63)
> The goal of this review should be to get libpsm2 into Fedora Rawhide (the
> 'master' branch of Fedora) and Fedora 24 (which is currently in preparation
> for a Beta release). I wouldn't bother with pushing it as an update to
> Fedora 23 (the latest stable release).

You are correct.  We are trying to get to fc24, currently by way of fc25.

The reason I am using fc23 is only due to expedience.  I do not have access to
a fc24 host, but, I do have access to a fc23 host.

> Fedora 24 currently contains kernel-4.5.2-301.fc24. It's Linus's kernel
> v4.5.2 plus some Fedora patches.
...
> 
> Are you looking for the presence of commit e116a64fab650 ("IB/hfi: Properly
> set permissions for user device files")? This one was included already in
> Linux v4.3-rc2.

In a word: yes.  :-)  Thanks for 'cutting to the chase'.

So, now that is settled.  The 40-psm.rules file will not be in the Fedora
release.  I will push new changes to github to reflect this after some internal
dust settles - which is WAY TOO COMPLICATED to discuss 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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1329340] Review Request: python-cradox - Python libraries for the Ceph librados library with use cython instead of ctypes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329340

Alan Pevec  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ape...@redhat.com



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

[Bug 1329340] Review Request: python-cradox - Python libraries for the Ceph librados library with use cython instead of ctypes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329340

Alan Pevec  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ape...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Alan Pevec  ---
CentOS CloudSIG CBS build https://cbs.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=10636
is now in openstack-common testing repo

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

[Bug 1328062] Review Request: jetbrains-annotations - IntelliJ IDEA Annotations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328062



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
jetbrains-annotations-15.0-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5a560d7399

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

[Bug 1328062] Review Request: jetbrains-annotations - IntelliJ IDEA Annotations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328062

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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1331704] New: Review Request: glusterfs-coreutils - Mimics standard Linux coreutils for GlusterFS clusters

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331704

Bug ID: 1331704
   Summary: Review Request: glusterfs-coreutils - Mimics standard
Linux coreutils for GlusterFS clusters
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: anoo...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://anoopcs.fedorapeople.org/glusterfs-coreutils/glusterfs-coreutils.spec

SRPM URL:
https://anoopcs.fedorapeople.org/glusterfs-coreutils/glusterfs-coreutils-0.0.1-0.3.gitf9a4a2e.fc24.src.rpm

Description:
gluster-coreutils provides a set of basic utilities such as cat, mkdir, ls,
stat, rm and tail that are implemented specifically using the GlusterFS API.

Fedora Account System Username:
anoopcs

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

[Bug 1324590] Review Request: hfi1-psm - Intel PSM Libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324590



--- Comment #63 from Michal Schmidt  ---
The goal of this review should be to get libpsm2 into Fedora Rawhide (the
'master' branch of Fedora) and Fedora 24 (which is currently in preparation for
a Beta release). I wouldn't bother with pushing it as an update to Fedora 23
(the latest stable release).

Fedora 24 currently contains kernel-4.5.2-301.fc24. It's Linus's kernel v4.5.2
plus some Fedora patches.

There are several ways to get to the source code of Fedora packages.
You can get them using fedpkg:
  fedpkg clone -a kernel
  cd kernel
  git checkout f24
  fedpkg prep

You can get them from a SRPM:
  dnf install dnf-plugins-core
  dnf download --source --releasever=24 kernel
  rpm -ivh kernel-*.src.rpm
  cd ~/rpmbuild/SPECS
  rpmbuild -bp kernel.spec

In the special case of the kernel you don't even have to download anything.
You can look directly at the exploded Fedora kernel git tree published by Josh
Boyer:

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/jwboyer/fedora.git/tree/drivers/staging/rdma/hfi1/device.c?h=kernel-4.5.2-301.fc24

Are you looking for the presence of commit e116a64fab650 ("IB/hfi: Properly set
permissions for user device files")? This one was included already in Linux
v4.3-rc2.

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

[Bug 1328062] Review Request: jetbrains-annotations - IntelliJ IDEA Annotations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328062



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

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

[Bug 1305547] Review Request: lyra - High availability RabbitMQ client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305547



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

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

[Bug 1326217] Review Request: google-noto-emoji-fonts - Google Noto Emoji Fonts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326217

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1326217] Review Request: google-noto-emoji-fonts - Google Noto Emoji Fonts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1326217



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
google-noto-emoji-fonts-20160406-4.fc24 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d61f328b5b

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

[Bug 1327511] Review Request: php-justinrainbow-json-schema - A library to validate a json schema

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327511



--- Comment #3 from Remi Collet  ---
Updated to 2.0.1

Spec:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/remicollet/remirepo/6df0e93b88e2f3240a0699b77baa4db2fe10fc1b/php/php-justinrainbow-json-schema/php-justinrainbow-json-schema.spec
Srpm:
http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-justinrainbow-json-schema-2.0.1-1.remi.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
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org