[Bug 1341815] Review Request: python-zope-testrunner - Zope testrunner script

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341815



--- Comment #2 from Jerry James  ---
Thanks for the review, William.  Let me know if I can review something for you.

(In reply to William Moreno from comment #1)
> - Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
>   Note: Binary egg files not removed in %prep:
>   ./python2/src/zope/testrunner/tests/testrunner-
>   ex-251759/eggs/foo.bar-1.2-py2.5.egg ./python3/src/zope/testrunner/tests
>   /testrunner-ex-251759/eggs/foo.bar-1.2-py2.5.egg

That's not a real egg.  It's part of an example (hence the foo.bar name), but
rpmlint can't tell that.  Sorry, I intended to mention this when I filed the
review bug, but managed to forget. :-(

> - Please chech the ownership of this directories:

I thought this package should own that dir, too, because I didn't think it had
any dependencies on packages that owned it, but I see python-zope-exceptions in
the list.  I will remove ownership of that directory.

> - Please fix those rpmlint issues:

I don't know what to do about the zero length files.  They are part of the
distribution, and are listed in SOURCES.txt, so I'm reluctant to delete them.

As for the man page, I will use help2man to generate man pages.

New URLs:
Spec URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-zope-testrunner/python-zope-testrunner.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-zope-testrunner/python-zope-testrunner-4.5.0-2.fc25.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1336005] Review Request: gap-pkg-resclasses - Set-theoretic computations with Residue Classes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336005

Ben Rosser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rosser@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rosser@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Ben Rosser  ---
Also happy to review, any chance you could take
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334888? (This depends on 1334887).

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

[Bug 1340551] Review Request: gap-pkg-irredsol - Irreducible soluble linear groups over finite fields

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1340551

Ben Rosser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rosser@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rosser@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Ben Rosser  ---
Happy to review, any chance you could take
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334887? (this is a re-review of a
Python 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1341839] Review Request: python-flask-oidc - An openID Connect support for Flask.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341839

skrze...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Version|rawhide |23



--- Comment #2 from skrze...@gmail.com ---
At last :)

Spec URL:
https://github.com/skrzepto/flask-oidc/raw/rpm-packaging/python-flask-oidc.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/skrzepto/flask-oidc/raw/rpm-packaging/python-flask-oidc-1.0.1-1.fc23.src.rpm

Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14341953

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

[Bug 1341839] Review Request: python-flask-oidc - An openID Connect support for Flask.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341839



--- Comment #1 from skrze...@gmail.com ---
postpone reviewing this until i get a successful koji build posted

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

[Bug 1341815] Review Request: python-zope-testrunner - Zope testrunner script

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341815



--- Comment #1 from William Moreno  ---
Package Review
==

Issues:
===
- Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
  Note: Binary egg files not removed in %prep:
  ./python2/src/zope/testrunner/tests/testrunner-
  ex-251759/eggs/foo.bar-1.2-py2.5.egg ./python3/src/zope/testrunner/tests
  /testrunner-ex-251759/eggs/foo.bar-1.2-py2.5.egg
  See:
 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Packaging_eggs_and_setuptools_concerns


- Please chech the ownership of this directories:
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
 packages/zope(python-zope-contenttype, python-zope-event, python-zope-
 sqlalchemy, python-zope-datetime, python2-zope-dottedname, python-
 zope-processlifetime, python-zope-sequencesort, python-zope-
 exceptions, python-zope-structuredtext, python-zope-dottedname),
 /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/zope(python3-zope-sqlalchemy, python3
 -zope-event, python3-zope-fixers, python3-zope-exceptions, python3
 -zope-dottedname)

- Please fix those rpmlint issues:
Rpmlint (installed packages)

python3-zope-testrunner.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/zope/testrunner/tests/testrunner-tb-format.txt
python3-zope-testrunner.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/zope/testrunner/tests/testrunner-ex-251759/eggs/foo.bar-1.2-py2.5.egg/test.py
python3-zope-testrunner.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary
python3-zope-testrunner
python2-zope-testrunner.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zope/testrunner/tests/testrunner-tb-format.txt
python2-zope-testrunner.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/zope/testrunner/tests/testrunner-ex-251759/eggs/foo.bar-1.2-py2.5.egg/test.py
python2-zope-testrunner.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary zope-testrunner
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings.


= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[!]: Python eggs must not download 

[Bug 1328892] Review Request: commissaire - Simple cluster host management

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328892



--- Comment #4 from William Moreno  ---
Package Review
==

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


- About the check issues you can try to include before tests:
export LC_ALL=C.UTF-8
export LANG=C.UTF-8
export PYTHONPATH=%{buildroot}/%{python2_sitearch}


- Please check the ownership of this directories: 
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/system,
 /usr/lib/systemd


- Please check this rpmlint issues:
Rpmlint
---
Checking: commissaire-0.0.1rc3-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
  commissaire-0.0.1rc3-1.fc23.src.rpm
commissaire.noarch: E: invalid-version 0.0.1rc3
commissaire.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/lib/systemd/system/commissaire.service
commissaire.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/licenses/commissaire/COPYING LICENSE
commissaire.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /etc/sysconfig/commissaire
commissaire.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary commissaire
commissaire.src: E: invalid-version 0.0.1rc3
commissaire.src:63: W: macro-in-comment %{__python2}
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 3 warnings.


- The spec is not the same in the link than in the src.rpm
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
-
--- /home/makerpm/1328892-commissaire/srpm/commissaire.spec2016-06-01
21:28:24.58100 +
+++ /home/makerpm/1328892-commissaire/srpm-unpacked/commissaire.spec   
2016-04-19 21:54:59.0 +
@@ -28,7 +28,4 @@
 Requires:  python-requests
 Requires:  py-bcrypt
-
-# Ansible's Python API has no stability guarantees,
-# so keep the acceptable versions on a short leash.
 Requires:  ansible >= 2.0.1.0
 Requires:  ansible < 2.0.2.0
@@ -64,5 +61,5 @@
 %check
 # XXX: Issue with the coverage module.
-#%{__python2} setup.py nosetests
+# %{__python2} setup.py nosetests

= MUST items =

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

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg 

[Bug 1328892] Review Request: commissaire - Simple cluster host management

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328892

John Dulaney  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||jdula...@fedoraproject.org



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

[Bug 1328951] Review Request: commissaire-client - CLI for Commissaire

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328951

John Dulaney  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||jdula...@fedoraproject.org



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

[Bug 1328951] Review Request: commissaire-client - CLI for Commissaire

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328951



--- Comment #1 from William Moreno  ---
I will recomend to include:

Provides: commctl

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

[Bug 1328951] Review Request: commissaire-client - CLI for Commissaire

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328951

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|williamjmore...@gmail.com
 QA Contact|williamjmore...@gmail.com   |extras...@fedoraproject.org



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

[Bug 1328892] Review Request: commissaire - Simple cluster host management

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328892



--- Comment #3 from Matthew Barnes  ---
Hey William, thanks for taking this up.

FYI, I am part of upstream.  We mainly develop with python2 and are aiming to
get this in RHEL/CentOS by way of Fedora, hence the focus on python2.  But I
can change it over to python3 for Fedora.

Good question with the docs.  Some of even the textual docs are autogenerated
from the python source code, but they should already be complete in a tarball
so I don't know why we're rebuilding them.  Let me get back to you on that.

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

[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

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

[Bug 1305502] Review Request: python-adal - ADAL for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305502

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||pikachu.2...@gmail.com
  Flags||needinfo?(pikachu.2014@gmai
   ||l.com)



--- Comment #3 from William Moreno  ---
Any update?

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

 CC||gy...@fsfe.org
  Flags||needinfo?(gy...@fsfe.org)



--- Comment #7 from William Moreno  ---
Any update?

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

[Bug 1201338] Review Request: python-uniseg - A pure Python module to determine Unicode text segmentation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201338

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC|williamjmore...@gmail.com   |
   Assignee|williamjmore...@gmail.com   |nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Flags|fedora-review?  |
   |needinfo?(muri...@br.ibm.co |
   |m)  |



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

[Bug 1341839] New: Review Request: python-flask-oidc - An openID Connect support for Flask.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341839

Bug ID: 1341839
   Summary: Review Request: python-flask-oidc - An openID Connect
support for Flask.
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: skrze...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/skrzepto/flask-oidc/rpm-packaging/python-flask_oidc.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/skrzepto/flask-oidc/raw/rpm-packaging/python-flask_oidc-1.0.1-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description: OpenID Connect support for Flask. This library should work with
any standards compliant OpenID Connect provider. It has been tested with:
Google+ login Ipsilon
Fedora Account System Username:skrzepto

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

[Bug 1336833] Review Request: python-resultsdb_api - API to resultsdb

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336833



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-resultsdb_api-1.2.2-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1336833] Review Request: python-resultsdb_api - API to resultsdb

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336833

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-06-01 16:22:42



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

[Bug 1328892] Review Request: commissaire - Simple cluster host management

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328892



--- Comment #2 from William Moreno  ---
I am currious about why you build the docs in %build:

# Build docs
%{__python2} setup.py build_sphinx -c doc -b text

But you only include the source .rst files in %doc, also could be better to
have the documentation in a subpackage.

%doc doc/apidoc/*.rst

Also this is a python2 package, does upstream support python3? In RHEL/CentOS
it is fine, but in Fedora packaging python3 is prefered.

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

[Bug 1341815] Review Request: python-zope-testrunner - Zope testrunner script

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341815

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1341815] New: Review Request: python-zope-testrunner - Zope testrunner script

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341815

Bug ID: 1341815
   Summary: Review Request: python-zope-testrunner - Zope
testrunner script
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-zope-testrunner/python-zope-testrunner.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/python-zope-testrunner/python-zope-testrunner-4.5.0-1.fc25.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: jjames
Description: This package provides a flexible test runner with layer support.

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

[Bug 1332307] Review Request: libcxx - C++ standard library targeting C++11

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332307



--- Comment #14 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #13)

> %dir /usr/include/c++
> /usr/include/c++/v1/

%{_includedir}/c++/

 is identical to

%dir %{_includedir}/c++
%{_includedir}/c++/v1/

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

[Bug 1332307] Review Request: libcxx - C++ standard library targeting C++11

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332307



--- Comment #13 from Antonio Trande  ---
(In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #12)
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #10)
> > > - /usr/include/c++ should be co-owned with libstdc++-devel
> > > 
> > > ... and it is!
> > 
> > Yes, explicitely I meant.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean there, but you approved the package. :) Thanks
> for the review!

%dir /usr/include/c++
/usr/include/c++/v1/

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

[Bug 567257] Review Request: libfm - GIO-based library for file manager-like programs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=567257

Jason Tibbitts  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
  Flags|needinfo?(ti...@math.uh.edu |
   |)   |
Last Closed|2010-03-22 12:04:06 |2016-06-01 15:00:53



--- Comment #20 from Jason Tibbitts  ---
You should file SCM admin requests in PKGDB.  They haven't been processed from
bugzilla tickets in some time.

See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageDB_admin_requests

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

[Bug 1335288] Review Request: python3-pyudev - python binding for libudev (EPEL7/python3 only)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1335288

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-06-01 14:48:10



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

[Bug 1332307] Review Request: libcxx - C++ standard library targeting C++11

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332307



--- Comment #12 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #11)
> (In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #10)
> > - /usr/include/c++ should be co-owned with libstdc++-devel
> > 
> > ... and it is!
> 
> Yes, explicitely I meant.

I'm not sure what you mean there, but you approved the package. :) Thanks for
the review!

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

[Bug 1335288] Review Request: python3-pyudev - python binding for libudev (EPEL7/python3 only)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1335288



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-pyudev-0.20.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1332307] Review Request: libcxx - C++ standard library targeting C++11

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332307

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #11 from Antonio Trande  ---
(In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #10)
> - /usr/include/c++ should be co-owned with libstdc++-devel
> 
> ... and it is!

Yes, explicitely I meant.

> 
> The weak symbols are okay to ignore. They're all in libcxxabi.

Okay.

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

[Bug 1332307] Review Request: libcxx - C++ standard library targeting C++11

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332307



--- Comment #10 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
- /usr/include/c++ should be co-owned with libstdc++-devel

... and it is! 

The weak symbols are okay to ignore. They're all in libcxxabi.

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

[Bug 1332307] Review Request: libcxx - C++ standard library targeting C++11

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332307



--- Comment #9 from Antonio Trande  ---
Package Review
==

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

= Issues =

- /usr/include/c++ should be co-owned with libstdc++-devel.

- rpmlint shows various 'undefined-non-weak-symbol' warnings.


= 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.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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 (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 5265 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/sagitter/1332307-libcxx/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/include/c++(libstdc++-devel)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
 (hardened_build flags safely ignored by clang)

[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).
[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 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]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libcxx-
 debuginfo
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.

[Bug 1323186] Review Request: opa-fmgui - Intel OPA Fabric GUI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323186



--- Comment #42 from Don Dutile  ---
+1 to what Jarod said.

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

[Bug 1323186] Review Request: opa-fmgui - Intel OPA Fabric GUI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323186



--- Comment #41 from Jarod Wilson  ---
"Requires" means "you cannot install this package without this/these packages
already installed, unless you force it". That is 100% by design. That's what we
have things like yum and dnf for -- they automatically sort out dependencies
and install them as needed. 'dnf install opa-fmgui' would install all the
Requires packages.

No, you can't bundle a bunch of 3rd party jar files that are already packaged
separately in Fedora into your package.

#2 is valid, it's possible a required package gets updated and breaks things,
but welcome to open source. :)

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

[Bug 1332307] Review Request: libcxx - C++ standard library targeting C++11

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1332307



--- Comment #8 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #7)
> - I see this warning on Fedora 25 64bit:
> 
> -- Found LLVM_CONFIG as /usr/bin/llvm-config
> CMake Warning at cmake/Modules/HandleOutOfTreeLLVM.cmake:46 (message):
>   Not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/llvm-3.8.0.src
> Call Stack (most recent call first):
>   cmake/Modules/HandleOutOfTreeLLVM.cmake:67 (find_llvm_parts)
>   CMakeLists.txt:37 (include)
> CMake Warning at CMakeLists.txt:39 (message):
>   UNSUPPORTED LIBCXX CONFIGURATION DETECTED: llvm-config not found and
>   LLVM_PATH not defined.
>   Reconfigure with -DLLVM_CONFIG=path/to/llvm-config or
>   -DLLVM_PATH=path/to/llvm-source-root.
> 
> On 64 bit systems, llvm-config looks not available; it's llvm-config-64.

Yes, but alternatives makes a symlink to llvm-config, so it is safe to always
call that.

> - Flags for hardened_builds are not used with clang.

Yes, but they're also safely ignored by clang.

> - Why do you not perform tests ?

Couldn't figure out how to run them, think it might require a full llvm source
tree.

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

[Bug 1300217] Review Request: python-ripe-atlas-sagan - A parsing library for RIPE Atlas measurement results

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300217

Paul Wouters  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review? needinfo?|fedora-review+



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

[Bug 1328951] Review Request: commissaire-client - CLI for Commissaire

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328951

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||williamjmore...@gmail.com
 QA Contact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |williamjmore...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1328892] Review Request: commissaire - Simple cluster host management

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328892

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 475823] Review Request: menu-cache - Caching mechanism for freedesktop.org compilant menus

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475823



--- Comment #14 from Kevin Fenzi  ---
Please request the branch in pkgdb.

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

[Bug 1323186] Review Request: opa-fmgui - Intel OPA Fabric GUI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323186

Rick Tierney  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(nhor...@redhat.co
   ||m)



--- Comment #40 from Rick Tierney  ---
Neil:

I discussed the new strategy with my team and everyone believes that this
approach would be "user unfriendly".  Here are some things to consider:

1. Specifying "Requires" in the spec file only indicates what libraries are
required during the run-time execution of opa-fmgui; it doesn't automatically
install them.  So if they aren't already installed, an error message will be
displayed when attempting to run opa-fmgui. The user will then have to manually
install the missing 3rd party libraries making this a hardship on the user; and
this can be as many as 35 jar files in the worst case scenario.

2. If Fedora were to ensure that the correct versions of all the 3rd party
libraries that we need are already installed as part of the Fedora release,
this is "more user friendly"... but if the user comes along with another
application that requires a different version of a 3rd party library than what
we are using, it could potentially render opa-fmgui useless since we haven't
tested it under the new version of the library.

3. If we package the 3rd party jars in the lib/ folder under the binary RPM and
specify the class path to point specifically to that folder, the user is
guaranteed to have a working opa-fmgui regardless of what other versions of 3rd
party libraries are installed on the system.

Based on what we have discussed previously about eliminating the jar files, is
it safe to say this is just a preference rather than a mandate?  If it is
allowable, we would like to continue packaging the jar files in the binary 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 827167] Review Request: bumblebee - Bumblebee daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827167



--- Comment #33 from Ben Rosser  ---
Oh, I see. 

Yes, if the nouveau support in bumblebee is going to be removed and all that's
left is bumblebee-nvidia, Fedora proper would not be able to package that.

(As a user of systems with hybrid Nvidia graphics, I think that'd be a bit
unfortunate, but oh well. The runtime power management stuff on the linked wiki
page did not just work out of the box for me on a fresh Fedora installation,
but I also didn't put much time into trying to debug it and just installed
bumblebee+bbswitch instead).

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

[Bug 1230213] Review Request: perl-Cookie-Baker - Cookie string generator / parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230213

Ralf Corsepius  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(rc040203@freenet. |
   |de) |



--- Comment #6 from Ralf Corsepius  ---
Update:

https://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Cookie-Baker.spec
https://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Cookie-Baker-0.06-1.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #2 from Anoop C S  ---
review.txt
==

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]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
[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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
 generated". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck is given towars the end.
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see below).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: 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 below).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 glusterfs-coreutils-debuginfo
[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.
[?]: 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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package 

[Bug 1331952] Review Request: openstack-mistral-ui - OpenStack Mistral Dashboard

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331952

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags||rdo-review+



--- Comment #23 from Matthias Runge  ---
I might have pulled a cached version of your package, this time it worked

https://cbs.centos.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94676

Everything else looks good to me


PACKAGE APPROVED

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

[Bug 1341662] Review Request: fedora-developer-portal- Offline Fedora Developer Portal

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341662

Michael Catanzaro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mcatanz...@gnome.org



--- Comment #1 from Michael Catanzaro  ---
One note: you want to depend on epiphany-runtime >= 3.20 rather than epiphany
>= 3.20. That allows users who prefer other browsers to uninstall the Epiphany
desktop file and search provider, while leaving the binary around to handle web
apps. This way it seems to the user as if Epiphany is not installed.

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

[Bug 1341672] Review Request: perl-Test2-AsyncSubtest - Tools for writing asynchronous subtest

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341672

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1341444
 Depends On|1341444 |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341444
[Bug 1341444] perl-Test2-Workflow-0.09 is available
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1341672] Review Request: perl-Test2-AsyncSubtest - Tools for writing asynchronous subtest

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341672

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1341444




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341444
[Bug 1341444] perl-Test2-Workflow-0.09 is available
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1341672] New: Review Request: perl-Test2-AsyncSubtest - Tools for writing asynchronous subtest

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341672

Bug ID: 1341672
   Summary: Review Request: perl-Test2-AsyncSubtest - Tools for
writing asynchronous subtest
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Test2-AsyncSubtest/perl-Test2-AsyncSubtest.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Test2-AsyncSubtest/perl-Test2-AsyncSubtest-0.16-1.fc25.src.rpm
Description:
These are tools for writing asynchronous subtests. Asynchronous subtests are
subtests which can be started and stashed so that they can continue to receive
events while other events are also being generated.

Fedora Account System Username: ppisar

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

[Bug 1331952] Review Request: openstack-mistral-ui - OpenStack Mistral Dashboard

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331952

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(mru...@redhat.com |
   |)   |



--- Comment #22 from Matthias Runge  ---
Destroying test database for alias 'default'...
Running flake8 ...
**WARNING**:
OpenStack hacking is not installed on your host. Its detection will be missed.
Please install or use virtual env if you need OpenStack hacking detection.
./run_tests.sh: line 156: flake8: command not found
Tests failed.
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TvE9a5 (%check)
RPM build errors:
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TvE9a5 (%check)
Child return code was: 1

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

[Bug 1331952] Review Request: openstack-mistral-ui - OpenStack Mistral Dashboard

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331952

Marcos  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(mru...@redhat.com
   ||)



--- Comment #21 from Marcos  ---
Hi Mathias,

I added python-flake8 as BuildRequire, please check again:

SPEC:
http://mferminl.web.cern.ch/mferminl/fedorapkg/openstack-mistral-ui/2.0.0/openstack-mistral-ui.spec
SRPM:
http://mferminl.web.cern.ch/mferminl/fedorapkg/openstack-mistral-ui/2.0.0/openstack-mistral-ui-2.0.0-1.fc25.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1341662] Review Request: fedora-developer-portal- Offline Fedora Developer Portal

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341662

František Zatloukal  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
   |fedora-developer-portal-|fedora-developer-portal-
   ||Offline Fedora Developer
   ||Portal



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

[Bug 1341662] New: Review Request: fedora-developer-portal- < short summary here>

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341662

Bug ID: 1341662
   Summary: Review Request: fedora-developer-portal- 
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: fzatl...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://github.com/frantisekz/fedora-developer-portal-portable/releases/download/20160531/fedora-developer-portal.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/frantisekz/fedora-developer-portal-portable/releases/download/20160531/fedora-developer-portal-0.9.1-1.src.rpm
Description: 
Fedora Account System Username: frantisekz

Package fedora-developer-portal provides offline version of Fedora Developer
Portal[0]. It depends on Epiphany >= 3.20 because of application mode support.
Users of Fedora 23 can install package from my COPR[1] which depends on
Electron (F24 and F25 rpms are built from this srpm).

[0] https://developer.fedoraproject.org/
[1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/frantisekz/fedora-developer-portal/

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

[Bug 475823] Review Request: menu-cache - Caching mechanism for freedesktop.org compilant menus

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475823

Ngo Than  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ASSIGNED
 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |---
  Flags||needinfo?(ke...@scrye.com)



--- Comment #13 from Ngo Than  ---
we need this package for epel7

Package Change Request
==
Package Name: menu-cache
New Branches: EPEL7

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

[Bug 946968] Review Request: pcmanfm-qt - Qt port of the LXDE file manager PCManFM

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=946968

Ngo Than  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ASSIGNED
 CC||limburg...@gmail.com,
   ||t...@redhat.com
 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |---
  Flags||needinfo?(limburgher@gmail.
   ||com)
   Keywords||Reopened



--- Comment #24 from Ngo Than  ---
we need this packagw in epel7

New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: pcmanfm-qt
Short Description: Qt port of the LXDE file manager PCManFM
Branches: epel7
InitialCC:

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

[Bug 567257] Review Request: libfm - GIO-based library for file manager-like programs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=567257

Ngo Than  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ASSIGNED
 CC||t...@redhat.com,
   ||ti...@math.uh.edu
 Resolution|ERRATA  |---
  Flags|fedora-cvs+ |needinfo?(ti...@math.uh.edu
   ||)
   Keywords||Reopened



--- Comment #19 from Ngo Than  ---
we need this package for epel7

New Package CVS Request
===
Package Name: libfm
Short Description: GIO-based library for file manager-like programs
Branches: epel7
InitialCC:

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

[Bug 1331952] Review Request: openstack-mistral-ui - OpenStack Mistral Dashboard

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331952

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(mru...@redhat.com |
   |)   |



--- Comment #20 from Matthias Runge  ---
nearly there: OK
nosetests mistraldashboard --nocapture --nologcapture
--cover-package=openstack_dashboard --cover-inclusive --all-modules
--verbosity=1
Creating test database for alias 'default'...
Destroying test database for alias 'default'...
Running flake8 ...
**WARNING**:
OpenStack hacking is not installed on your host. Its detection will be missed.
Please install or use virtual env if you need OpenStack hacking detection.
./run_tests.sh: line 156: flake8: command not found
Tests failed.
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.D630qF (%check)
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.D630qF (%check)
RPM build errors:
Child return code was: 1
EXCEPTION: Command failed. See logs for output.
 # bash --login -c /usr/bin/rpmbuild -bb --target noarch --nodeps 
/builddir/build/SPECS/openstack-mistral-ui.spec 
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py", line
88, in trace
result = func(*args, **kw)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/mockbuild/util.py", line 547, in do
raise exception.Error("Command failed. See logs for output.\n # %s" %
(command,), child.returncode)
Error: Command failed. See logs for output.
 # bash --login -c /usr/bin/rpmbuild -bb --target noarch --nodeps 
/builddir/build/SPECS/openstack-mistral-ui.spec 
LEAVE do --> EXCEPTION RAISED

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

[Bug 1341642] Review Request: cryptlib - Security library and toolkit for encryption and authentication services

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341642



--- Comment #2 from Ralf Senderek  ---
There has already been a discussion about the necessity to exclude certain
code from the original cryptlib zip-file in RHBZ #1310092 (cryptobone).

Of course the same reduced source code zip file is used in this review request,
to avoid any possible legal issues.

The reduced cryptlib source code zip file can be found here:

https://crypto-bone.com/fedora/cl343_fedora.zip



For more information, please refer to comment #47 of RHBZ #1310092 here:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310092#c47

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

[Bug 1341642] Review Request: cryptlib - Security library and toolkit for encryption and authentication services

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341642

Ralf Senderek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Doc Type|If docs needed, set a value |Bug Fix



--- Comment #1 from Ralf Senderek  ---
A successful KOJI build for f23 can be found here:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14337244

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

[Bug 1341642] New: Review Request: cryptlib - Security library and toolkit for encryption and authentication services

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341642

Bug ID: 1341642
   Summary: Review Request: cryptlib -  Security library and
toolkit for encryption and authentication services
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: fed...@senderek.ie
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://crypto-bone.com/fedora/cryptlib.spec
SRPM URL: https://crypto-bone.com/fedora/cryptlib-3.4.3-1.fc23.src.rpm

Description: 
Cryptlib is a powerful security tool kit that allows even inexperienced crypto
programmers to easily add encryption and authentication services to their
software. The high-level interface provides anyone with the ability to add
strong security capabilities to an application in as little as half an hour,
without needing to know any of the low-level details that make the encryption
or authentication work.  Because of this, cryptlib dramatically reduces the
cost involved in adding security to new or existing applications.

Fedora Account System Username: senderek (Ralf Senderek)

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

[Bug 1341641] Review Request: pytest-runner - Invoke py.test as distutils command with dependency resolution

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341641

Matěj Cepl  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1302479




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302479
[Bug 1302479] python-mccabe-0.5.0 is available
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1341641] Review Request: pytest-runner - Invoke py.test as distutils command with dependency resolution

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341641



--- Comment #1 from Matěj Cepl  ---
Scratch build in Rawhide
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14337225

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

[Bug 1341641] New: Review Request: pytest-runner - Invoke py.test as distutils command with dependency resolution

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341641

Bug ID: 1341641
   Summary: Review Request: pytest-runner - Invoke py.test as
distutils command with dependency resolution
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: mc...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org




Spec URL: http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp//pytest-runner.spec
SRPM URL: http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp//pytest-runner-2.8-1.fc25.src.rpm

Description:
Setup scripts can use pytest-runner to add setup.py test support for pytest
runner.

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

[Bug 1331952] Review Request: openstack-mistral-ui - OpenStack Mistral Dashboard

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331952

Marcos  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(mru...@redhat.com
   ||)



--- Comment #19 from Marcos  ---
Hi Mathias,

I removed that dependency, please, check again:

SPEC:
http://mferminl.web.cern.ch/mferminl/fedorapkg/openstack-mistral-ui/2.0.0/openstack-mistral-ui.spec
SRPM:
http://mferminl.web.cern.ch/mferminl/fedorapkg/openstack-mistral-ui/2.0.0/openstack-mistral-ui-2.0.0-1.fc25.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1331952] Review Request: openstack-mistral-ui - OpenStack Mistral Dashboard

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331952



--- Comment #18 from Matthias Runge  ---
With python-django-nose added, it still fails:
DEBUG util.py:417:  Getting requirements for
openstack-mistral-ui-2.0.0-1.el7.src
DEBUG util.py:417:   --> Already installed : git-1.8.3.1-6.el7_2.1.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:417:   --> 1:openstack-dashboard-9.0.0-1.el7.noarch
DEBUG util.py:417:   --> python-devel-2.7.5-34.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:417:   --> python-coverage-3.6-0.5.b3.el7.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:417:   --> python-django-nose-1.4.3-1.el7.noarch
DEBUG util.py:417:   --> python2-mistralclient-2.0.0-3.el7.noarch
DEBUG util.py:417:   --> python2-mock-1.3.0-1.el7.noarch
DEBUG util.py:417:   --> python-mox-0.5.3-6.el7.noarch
DEBUG util.py:417:   --> python2-mox3-0.14.0-1.el7.noarch
DEBUG util.py:417:   --> python-nose-1.3.7-7.el7.noarch
DEBUG util.py:417:   --> python-nose-exclude-0.1.9-3.el7.noarch
DEBUG util.py:417:   --> python-openstack-nose-plugin-0.11-4.el7.noarch
DEBUG util.py:417:   --> python2-oslo-sphinx-4.3.0-1.el7.noarch
DEBUG util.py:417:   --> python-pbr-1.8.1-2.el7.noarch
DEBUG util.py:417:   --> python-selenium-2.42.1-3.el7.noarch
DEBUG util.py:417:   --> python-setuptools-0.9.8-4.el7.noarch
DEBUG util.py:417:   --> python-sphinx-1.2.3-4.el7.noarch
DEBUG util.py:417:  Error: No Package found for python-xvfbwrapper
DEBUG util.py:542:  Child return code was: 1
DEBUG util.py:176:  kill orphans

I would think, there is no need for python-xvfbwrapper, since there are no
integration tests

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

[Bug 1341283] Review Request: php-lukasreschke-id3parser - ID3 parser library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341283



--- Comment #2 from Remi Collet  ---
Thanks for the fast review.


SCM request open on pkgdb (with you as co-owner)

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

[Bug 1341283] Review Request: php-lukasreschke-id3parser - ID3 parser library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341283

James Hogarth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from James Hogarth  ---
Package Review
==

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

= Issues 

  * EL5 boilerplate in spec
- Remove all the EL5 rm -rf %{buildroot}, %defattr, group, etc stuff in
spec
  * rpmlint error: E: explicit-lib-dependency php-zlib
- The auto dependency generator doesn't get this so this is a false
positive 

= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/james/workspace/fedora-scm/1341283
 -php-lukasreschke-id3parser/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
 Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: 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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: 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]: 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:
[!]: Buildroot is not present
 Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
 Note: %clean present but not required
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[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
  

[Bug 1331952] Review Request: openstack-mistral-ui - OpenStack Mistral Dashboard

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331952

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(mru...@redhat.com |
   |)   |



--- Comment #17 from Matthias Runge  ---
https://cbs.centos.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94517

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

[Bug 1331952] Review Request: openstack-mistral-ui - OpenStack Mistral Dashboard

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331952

Marcos  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(mru...@redhat.com
   ||)



--- Comment #16 from Marcos  ---
Hi Mathias,

I updated the BuildRequires adding more dependencies (full list here
https://github.com/openstack/mistral-dashboard/blob/2.0.0/test-requirements.txt)

Please, scratch again in cbs.centos.org

SPEC:
http://mferminl.web.cern.ch/mferminl/fedorapkg/openstack-mistral-ui/2.0.0/openstack-mistral-ui.spec
SRPM:
http://mferminl.web.cern.ch/mferminl/fedorapkg/openstack-mistral-ui/2.0.0/openstack-mistral-ui-2.0.0-1.fc25.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1341283] Review Request: php-lukasreschke-id3parser - ID3 parser library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341283

James Hogarth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1339158] Review Request: pioneer - A game of lonely space adventure

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339158

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
pioneer-20160512-3.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-2016-85301993ca

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

[Bug 1336726] Review Request: erlang-lucene_parser - A library for Lucene-like query syntax parsing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336726

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
erlang-lucene_parser-1-1.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-2016-4b6ddd3cde

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

[Bug 1160671] Review Request: seafile - Cloud storage system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1160671

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
seafile-5.1.2-3.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-2016-6aa664154f

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

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
https://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 #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-JsonSchema-1.6.1-3.fc24 php-justinrainbow-json-schema-2.0.4-2.fc24 has been
submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ba31f25ade

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

[Bug 1341498] New: Review Request: globus-gridftp-server-s3 - Globus Toolkit - GridFTP S3 DSI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341498

Bug ID: 1341498
   Summary: Review Request: globus-gridftp-server-s3 - Globus
Toolkit - GridFTP S3 DSI
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/globus-gridftp-server-s3.spec
SRPM URL:
http://www.grid.tsl.uu.se/review/globus-gridftp-server-s3-0.22-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm

Description:
The Globus Toolkit is an open source software toolkit used for building Grid
systems and applications. It is being developed by the Globus Alliance and
many others all over the world. A growing number of projects and companies are
using the Globus Toolkit to unlock the potential of grids for their cause.

The globus-gridftp-server-s3 package contains:
GridFTP S3 DSI

The globus-gridftp-server-ceph package contains:
GridFTP Ceph RADOS Gateway DSI

Fedora Account System Username: ellert

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

[Bug 1300217] Review Request: python-ripe-atlas-sagan - A parsing library for RIPE Atlas measurement results

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300217

Jan Včelák  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review- needinfo+|fedora-review? needinfo?



--- Comment #7 from Jan Včelák  ---
Paul, please, can you fix the flags? :-)

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

[Bug 1254221] Review Request: python-networking-vmware-nsx - VMware OpenStack Neutron driver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1254221

Alan Pevec  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1243533
   ||(RDO-LIBERTY-REVIEWS)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243533
[Bug 1243533] (RDO) Tracker: Review requests for new RDO Liberty packages
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org