[Bug 1302876] Review Request: clatd - CLAT / SIIT-DC Edge Relay implementation for Linux

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302876



--- Comment #9 from Petr Pisar  ---
(In reply to Lubomir Rintel from comment #8)
> Also, why are you packaging a snapshot instead of a released version?
> 
> > %if 0%{?fedora} > 23
> > BuildRequires:perl-podlators
> > %endif
> 
> You can get rid of the conditional if you do a BuildRequires:
> /usr/bin/pod2man
>
Better "%{_bindir}/pod2man". If Fedora decides to move the prefix again or if
somebody wants to port the spec file to SCL.

But the condition is wrong. E.g. F23 has the program in perl-podlators package.
Actually, the first Fedora with perl-podlators is F19. Also RHEL-7 has the
package.

> > Requires: perl(Net::IP)
> > Requires: perl(Net::DNS)
> > Requires: perl(IO::Socket::INET6)
> > Requires: perl(File::Temp)
> 
> Hmm, these should be autogenerated; but only Net::IP is. Seems like the 
> dependency generator ignores requires if they don't start in column zero...
> 
Collective wisdom says indented "require" statements generates too many false
positives. Therefore generators omit them. But I'm not fully convinced about
helpfulness of the omission.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1265265] Review Request: mlt - A multimedia framework designed for television broadcasting

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265265



--- Comment #26 from Luya Tshimbalanga  ---
(In reply to Sergio Monteiro Basto from comment #18)
> (In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #17)
> > Quick question, is it possible to make modules like mlt-core, mlt-avformat,
> > mlt-kdenlive and mlt-disable-kino? Case in the points are kernel and wine.
> 
> To exemplify I built mlt on copr [1], just with Fedora repos, we can build
> all modules except avformat. In my build I don't enable or disable any
> modules mlt check for requirements if don't have the requirements, don't
> build the module, also don't build deprecated modules and dv, kino, and
> vorbis modules are deprecated [2]. Do you want/need any of deprecated
> modules like kino ? 


Kino module is not needed for the Design Suite which bundles the old version of
Synfig Studio. You get an idea about Synfig Studio requirement:
http://wiki.synfig.org/Developer_Documentation

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1348997] Review Request: backports.shutil_get_terminal_size - A backport of the get_terminal_size function

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348997



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-backports-shutil_get_terminal_size-1.0.0-1.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-2016-2efe949d18

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1348997] Review Request: backports.shutil_get_terminal_size - A backport of the get_terminal_size function

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348997

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-backports-shutil_get_terminal_size-1.0.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the
Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it
in this bug report.
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-2016-10a3578e5a

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1344231] Review Request: multilib-rpm-config - packaging helpers for multilib issues

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344231



--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System  ---
multilib-rpm-config-1-5.el5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 5.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-8588a263e0

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1344231] Review Request: multilib-rpm-config - packaging helpers for multilib issues

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344231



--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System  ---
multilib-rpm-config-1-5.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-7b237aa12a

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1344231] Review Request: multilib-rpm-config - packaging helpers for multilib issues

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344231



--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System  ---
multilib-rpm-config-1-5.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-123bab5494

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316



--- Comment #7 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
> Please add 
> BuildRequires: mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin)
> and for prevent new build failure add also
> BuildRequires: mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin)
Added BuildRequires.

> Is available a new release:
> https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/releases/tag/v0.14.3
> Please, considering upgrade
Bumped the version to latest upstream, new SRPM:
https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/bitcoinj/bitcoinj-0.14.3-1.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 1349026] Review Request: python-pkginfo - Query metadata from sdists / bdists / installed packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349026



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pkginfo-1.3.2-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-8878f72f38

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1349121] Review Request: python-invocations - Invocations is a collection of reusable Invoke tasks /task modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349121



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-invocations-0.13.0-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8ff1cea6dd

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1350029] Review Request: libi40iw - userspace rdma library for Intel Ethernet Connection X722

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350029



--- Comment #2 from Jarod Wilson  ---
Okay, I've done an initial pass through the spec, and a few things of note to
take care of:

1) There's mixed use of both $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}. These two are
equivalent, but it's preferred that you only use one or the other consistently
through the spec.

2) The COPYING file these days needs to be listed in the spec file under
%license, rather than as %doc.

3) Formatting on the changelog entry is slightly off, there should be a space
between the initial "*" and the date entry, and the version at the tail end of
the line should be version-release, i.e. "0.5.223-1".

4) Fedora guidelines complain about unversioned library files dropped straight
into %libdir, though putting a .a file into a -devel-static package seems to be
the norm for all rdma hardware-specific libibverbs-based driver libs like this,
so I think we can leave that as-is.

5) the Source: url to the tarball is a bit off, it says ./downloads/i40iw/.,
but it should be ./downloads/libi40iw/. instead.

6) the file dropped under libibverbs.d/ should probably be marked at %config,
as you can edit the file to alter behavior, and don't want that overwritten by
a package update. I've looked at another libibverbs driver or two, and they're
done as %config as well.

7) The spec says license GPL/BSD, and looking at the various sources, that
seems accurate, as I see both GPLv2 and GPLv3, and various BSD license text in
the source. However, the COPYING file looks to only mention GPLv2. May need
multiple license files here to cover all cases. Also, rpmlint complains that
"GPL/BSD" isn't a valid value for the License: field. Looking at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines I think "GPLv2+
and BSD" or "GPLv2+ or BSD" might be appropriate.

8) BuildRequires on libibverbs-devel are not versioned, which may well be just
fine, but I'd like to double-check that there isn't some minimal version
required for proper libi40iw support. (I seem to recall the hfi1 bits requiring
libibverbs 1.3.0 or later, thus why I ask).

9) BuildRoot doesn't actually need to be explicitly defined, and the preference
of late is actually that we let RPM internals figure it out, so the BuildRoot:
... line could actually be removed from the spec. Not a hard requirement
though, particularly if looking to support much older versions of RPM in older
distributions with the same spec.

Most of this is pretty trivial to fix up, but the one that really needs the
most effort is probably the license bit, to make sure we can get through legal
with the proper licensing documented here.

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

[Bug 1349121] Review Request: python-invocations - Invocations is a collection of reusable Invoke tasks /task modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349121



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-invocations-0.13.0-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-757b73617d

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1349121] Review Request: python-invocations - Invocations is a collection of reusable Invoke tasks /task modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349121

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1339327] Review Request: libinvm-i18n - Internationalization library supporting a subset of internationalization functionality.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339327

Namratha Kothapalli  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(namratha.n.kothap |
   |a...@intel.com) |



--- Comment #10 from Namratha Kothapalli  ---
Updated review. 

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[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 (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 1
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /media/intelnvmi18nlibrary/output/rpmbuild/SRPMS/1339327-libinvm-
 i18n/licensecheck.txt
[x]: 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.
[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.
[-]: 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 20480 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]: 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]: 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]: 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 libinvm-
 i18n-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package 

[Bug 1349026] Review Request: python-pkginfo - Query metadata from sdists / bdists / installed packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349026



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pkginfo-1.3.2-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b2b90a1931

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1349026] Review Request: python-pkginfo - Query metadata from sdists / bdists / installed packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349026



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pkginfo-1.3.2-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-208faf8ecd

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1349026] Review Request: python-pkginfo - Query metadata from sdists / bdists / installed packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349026

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1338553] Review Request: nitroshare - Transfer files from one device to another made extremely simple

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1338553



--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System  ---
nitroshare-0.3.1-3.20160612git930c9b7.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 1350429] Review Request: python-maxminddb - Reader for the MaxMind DB format

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350429



--- Comment #2 from Lumír Balhar  ---
Hello.

Thank you for review. I moved docs to subpackage.

Spec URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-maxminddb.spec
SRPM URL:
https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-maxminddb-1.2.1-1.fc24.src.rpm

Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14676161

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1349121] Review Request: python-invocations - Invocations is a collection of reusable Invoke tasks /task modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349121



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1302876] Review Request: clatd - CLAT / SIIT-DC Edge Relay implementation for Linux

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302876



--- Comment #8 from Lubomir Rintel  ---
* Named correctly
* Licensed correctly
* License text included
* SPEC file clean and legible
* Builds fine in mock

Looks generally good. There's some notes below -- some of them are just
suggestions; the only thing that really needs a fix is the %config tag:

> Release:  1.3.20160128git%{?shortcommit0}%{?dist}

The "1.3" in release looks weird; you typically use only one digit unless the
first one is a zero. E.g. "0.3." for a pre-release snapshot and
"3." for a post-release snapshot.

Also, why are you packaging a snapshot instead of a released version?

> %if 0%{?fedora} > 23
> BuildRequires:perl-podlators
> %endif

You can get rid of the conditional if you do a BuildRequires: /usr/bin/pod2man

> Requires: perl(Net::IP)
> Requires: perl(Net::DNS)
> Requires: perl(IO::Socket::INET6)
> Requires: perl(File::Temp)

Hmm, these should be autogenerated; but only Net::IP is. Seems like the 
dependency generator ignores requires if they don't start in column zero...

> %build
> pod2man   --name %{name} \
>   --center "clatd - a CLAT implementation for Linux" \
>   --section 8 \
>   README.pod %{name}.8
> gzip %{name}.8
> echo '# Default clatd.conf
> # See clatd(8) for a list of config directives' > %{name}.conf
> 
> sed -i "s,%{_sbindir}/clatd,%{_sbindir}/clatd -c 
> %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}.conf," \
>   scripts/*
> 
> 
> %install
> install -p -D -m0755 %{name} %{buildroot}%{_sbindir}/%{name}
> install -p -D -m0644 %{name}.8.gz %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man8/%{name}.8.gz
> install -p -D -m0644 %{name}.conf %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/%{name}.conf
> install -p -D -m0755 scripts/%{name}.networkmanager 
> %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/NetworkManager/dispatcher.d/50-%{name}
> %if 0%{?fedora} >= 18 || 0%{?rhel} >= 7
> install -p -D -m 0644 scripts/%{name}.systemd 
> %{buildroot}%{_unitdir}/%{name}.service
> %else
> install -p -D -m0644 scripts/%{name}.upstart 
> %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/init/%{name}.conf;
> %endif

This all should ideally be in the upstream Makefile. Perhaps you could ask
upstream?

> %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}.conf

This one is a configuration file; please mark it woth %config(noreplace).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1349026] Review Request: python-pkginfo - Query metadata from sdists / bdists / installed packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349026



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1349121] Review Request: python-invocations - Invocations is a collection of reusable Invoke tasks /task modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349121

Patrick Creech  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Patrick Creech  ---
= 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 (2 clause)", "*No copyright* BSD", "Unknown or generated".
 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/pcreech17/1349121-python-invocations/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 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]: 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 interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1349026] Review Request: python-pkginfo - Query metadata from sdists / bdists / installed packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349026

Patrick Creech  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Patrick Creech  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
  Note: Binary egg files not removed in %prep:
  ./docs/examples/nopkginfo-0.1.egg ./docs/examples/mypackage-0.1-py2.6.egg
  See:
 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Packaging_eggs_and_setuptools_concerns


= 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". 38 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/pcreech17/1349026-python-
 pkginfo/licensecheck.txt
[-]: 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
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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 interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel

= 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 attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 python2-pkginfo , python3-pkginfo , python-pkginfo-doc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 

[Bug 1302876] Review Request: clatd - CLAT / SIIT-DC Edge Relay implementation for Linux

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302876

Lubomir Rintel  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||lkund...@v3.sk
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lkund...@v3.sk
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #7 from Lubomir Rintel  ---
Taking this for a 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 1340619] Review Request: python-imagesize - Python module for analyzing image file headers and returning image sizes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1340619



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-imagesize-0.7.1-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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 1340619] Review Request: python-imagesize - Python module for analyzing image file headers and returning image sizes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1340619

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-06-27 14:27:51



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1336773] Review Request: python-Pympler - Measure, monitor and analyze the memory behavior of Python objects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336773
Bug 1336773 depends on bug 1336740, which changed state.

Bug 1336740 Summary: python-matplotlib bundles python-six 1.9.0 which tries to 
import winreg module and fails
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336740

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1344410] Review Request: hoedown - Standards compliant, fast, secure markdown processing library in C

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344410



--- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
(In reply to Josh Stone from comment #3)
> > hm, there is only 2 binaries with small size. is it worth to make libs 
> > subpackage?
> 
> I can't find official guidelines on this, but I prefer to avoid installing
> things in /bin unnecessarily.  If most people will be using this in library
> form, as with rustdoc, then they don't need the binaries.
There are no guidelines about that, it's up to maintainer if he wants to have
libs subpkg. I will make it.
> 
> You can take python for precedent -- its main binary is even smaller than
> these.
> 
> > Anything else to fix?
> 
> Not that I see.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1350547] Review Request: perl-Net-IP-XS - IPv4/IPv6 address library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350547

Paul Wouters  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|puiterw...@redhat.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 1349026] Review Request: python-pkginfo - Query metadata from sdists / bdists / installed packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349026

Patrick Creech  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1349121] Review Request: python-invocations - Invocations is a collection of reusable Invoke tasks /task modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349121

Patrick Creech  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1350547] New: Review Request: perl-Net-IP-XS - IPv4/ IPv6 address library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350547

Bug ID: 1350547
   Summary: Review Request: perl-Net-IP-XS - IPv4/IPv6 address
library
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: pwout...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/perl-Net-IP-XS/perl-Net-IP-XS.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/perl-Net-IP-XS/perl-Net-IP-XS-0.17-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: An XS (C) implementation of Net::IP. See Net::IP's documentation
(as at version 1.25) for the functions and methods that are available.

Fedora Account System Username: pwouters

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1344410] Review Request: hoedown - Standards compliant, fast, secure markdown processing library in C

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344410



--- Comment #3 from Josh Stone  ---
> hm, there is only 2 binaries with small size. is it worth to make libs 
> subpackage?

I can't find official guidelines on this, but I prefer to avoid installing
things in /bin unnecessarily.  If most people will be using this in library
form, as with rustdoc, then they don't need the binaries.

You can take python for precedent -- its main binary is even smaller than
these.

> Anything else to fix?

Not that I see.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1343734] Review Request: liboobs - Wrapping library to the System Tools Backends

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343734



--- Comment #13 from Raphael Groner  ---
(In reply to mulhern from comment #12)
> _Very_ active. They seem to be in process of removing liboobs dependency due
> to the fact that it is not maintained.
> 
> See: 446891a14e5810c8fe395031008d406005b52dc7 and current README.

Thanks for the hint. I overlooked that and 'll apply the patch or use latest
git snapshot.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1343734] Review Request: liboobs - Wrapping library to the System Tools Backends

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343734



--- Comment #12 from mulhern  ---
_Very_ active. They seem to be in process of removing liboobs dependency due to
the fact that it is not maintained.

See: 446891a14e5810c8fe395031008d406005b52dc7 and current README.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1339327] Review Request: libinvm-i18n - Internationalization library supporting a subset of internationalization functionality.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339327

Dan Williams  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||namratha.n.kothapalli@intel
   ||.com
  Flags||needinfo?(namratha.n.kothap
   ||a...@intel.com)



--- Comment #9 from Dan Williams  ---
Looks good, please review the pending check list items "[ ]" and disposition
them as [x], [-], or [!].

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1349026] Review Request: python-pkginfo - Query metadata from sdists / bdists / installed packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349026

Patrick Creech  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||pcre...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pcre...@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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1349121] Review Request: python-invocations - Invocations is a collection of reusable Invoke tasks /task modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349121

Patrick Creech  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||pcre...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pcre...@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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1339327] Review Request: libinvm-i18n - Internationalization library supporting a subset of internationalization functionality.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339327



--- Comment #8 from Namratha Kothapalli  ---
Here's the result of a fedora-review run with the rest of the template filled
out.

C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[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:
[ ]: 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: "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 1
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /media/intelnvmi18nlibrary/output/rpmbuild/SRPMS/1339327-libinvm-
 i18n/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 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]: 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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libinvm-
 i18n-debuginfo
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[ ]: Spec use %global instead 

[Bug 1349859] Review Request: perl-MooX-Struct - Record structure-like Moo classes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349859

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||jples...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jples...@redhat.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 1349910] Review Request: perl-Module-Install-Copyright - Package a COPYRIGHT file with a distribution

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349910
Bug 1349910 depends on bug 1349904, which changed state.

Bug 1349904 Summary: Review Request: perl-Module-Install-Contributors - Add an 
x_contributors section to your META.yml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349904

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



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

[Bug 1349904] Review Request: perl-Module-Install-Contributors - Add an x_contributors section to your META.yml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349904

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Module-Install-Contrib
   ||utors-0.001-1.fc25
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-06-27 10:32:16



--- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar  ---
Thank you for the review and the repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1349859] Review Request: perl-MooX-Struct - Record structure-like Moo classes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349859
Bug 1349859 depends on bug 1349524, which changed state.

Bug 1349524 Summary: Review Request: perl-Scalar-Does - Check an object 
implements an interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349524

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



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

[Bug 1349524] Review Request: perl-Scalar-Does - Check an object implements an interface

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349524

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Scalar-Does-0.202-1.fc
   ||25
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-06-27 10:25:49



--- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar  ---
Thank you for the review and the repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1349904] Review Request: perl-Module-Install-Contributors - Add an x_contributors section to your META.yml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349904



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-Module-Install-Contributors

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1349524] Review Request: perl-Scalar-Does - Check an object implements an interface

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349524



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-Scalar-Does

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1343734] Review Request: liboobs - Wrapping library to the System Tools Backends

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343734



--- Comment #11 from Raphael Groner  ---
Both dependencies are needed for lxqt-admin, bug #1343738.
LXQt development is very active.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1350429] Review Request: python-maxminddb - Reader for the MaxMind DB format

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350429

Dominika Krejčí  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||dkre...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dkre...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Dominika Krejčí  ---
Hello Lumír,
the package seems ok to me, accept the large documentation, which must be
included in the special subpackage.


Package Review
==

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


= Issues =

* Put the large documentation (~3MB and more files) into the -doc subpackage.

= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Contains Python extension module.
[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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 35
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/dkrejci/fedora_review/1350429-python-maxminddb/licensecheck.txt
[x]: 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.
[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 20480 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]: 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 interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be 

[Bug 1343734] Review Request: liboobs - Wrapping library to the System Tools Backends

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343734



--- Comment #10 from mulhern  ---
So the first question is, is it worth packaging?

Last commit was in 2011, what makes it suddenly so desirable for Fedora in
2016?

Two apparently reasonable PRs were opened in 2014 and completely ignored by the
maintainers (eventually closed by the person who opened them). That's not
usually a good sign. The fixes are small, but those are usually the easiest to
merge if you are paying attention at all.

system-tools-backends also stopped in 2011, but its history since then is more
obscure.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1343734] Review Request: liboobs - Wrapping library to the System Tools Backends

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343734



--- Comment #9 from mulhern  ---
Associated FPC ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/633

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1350429] New: Review Request: python-maxminddb - Reader for the MaxMind DB format

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350429

Bug ID: 1350429
   Summary: Review Request: python-maxminddb - Reader for the
MaxMind DB format
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: lbal...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-maxminddb.spec
SRPM URL:
https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-maxminddb-1.2.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: This is a Python module for reading MaxMind DB files. The module
includes both a pure Python reader and an optional C extension. MaxMind DB is a
binary file format that stores data indexed by IP address subnets (IPv4 or
IPv6).

Fedora Account System Username: lbalhar

Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14672163

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1335988] Review Request: giac - Computer Algebra System, Symbolic calculus, Geometry

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1335988



--- Comment #19 from Antonio Trande  ---
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #17)
> My latest attempt at building did NOT trigger the pari problem, so hopefully
> that means that whatever caused it has gone away.
> 
> Package Review
> ==
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> 
> Issues:
> ===
> - The configure script looks for Xinerama, but doesn't find it.  Perhaps add
>   BuildRequires: libXinerama-devel or BuildRequires: pkgconfig(xinerama).
> 
> - The tutorial in doc/*/casinter* is released under the GNU Free
> Documentation
>   License, and is also not produced from source with hevea and hacha.
>   At the very least, the -doc subpackage's license must have GFDL added to
> it.
>   I think you should also BuildRequires: hevea and generate the HTML files.
> 
> - The giac-doc package owns %{_docdir}/giac-doc, and installs README in that
>   directory, but also installs files into both %{_docdir}/giac and
>   %{_datadir}/giac/doc, neither of which it owns.  Since it can be installed
>   separately from the other packages, it must own these two directories.
> 
> - tinymt32 is bundled.  It should either be split out as a separate package,
>   or the bundling should be noted in the spec file; e.g., with
>   Provides: bundled(tinymt32)

Where is in Fedora ?

> 
> - The documentation bundles some javascript code:
>   o doc/codemirror.{css,js} (MIT)
>   o doc/FileSaver.js (MIT)
>   o doc/matchbrackets.js (MIT)

Should be packaged in %_jsdir ?

> 
> - Also note that texinfo.tex is available in the texinfo-tex package; it
>   appears in doc/{de,en,es,local,pt,zh}/texinfo.tex.  This is not critical.
> 
> - Revision 45 is packaged, but revision 63 is the latest.  Does that matter?
> 
> - gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in both %post xcas and %posttrans xcas.
>   The invocation in %post xcas should be removed.
> 
> - The spec file contains an ExclusiveArch tag with a note about PPC and
>   aarch64.  What are the issues?  Is somebody working to resolve them?  This
>   information would be useful in a spec file comment.  Also, is it only PPC
>   and aarch64 that are not ready?  If so, ExcludeArch should be used instead
>   of ExclusiveArch.  What about mips, for example?
> 
> - Does perl need to be present in the build root for any reason?  If so,
>   then BuildRequires: perl-generators must be added since perl is being
>   removed from the default build root.
> 
> - Would it be possible/advisable to split out the noarch files under
>   %{_datadir} into a noarch subpackage that is required by the main package?
>   That would allow sharing across architectures.
> 
> - I understand that the non-UTF-8 rpmlint warnings should be ignored for
> *.xws
>   files, but there are warnings for other types of files, too.  Please look
>   through the warnings below and see if any of the other files should be
>   converted.
> 
> - Please also check the hidden-file-or-dir warnings.  Are those files needed?
> 
> - Rpmlint still generates an unused-direct-shlib-dependency warning for
>   libgslcblas.so.0, in spite of the sed command in %build intended to fix
> this.
>   Do you have any idea why?
> 
> - I would like to suggest some updates to xcas-appdata.xml, which I will
>   attach.  With these changes, "appstream-util validate" *almost* works.  It
>   doesn't like the lengths of parts of the description.  Oh, well.  The
> relaxed
>   validation still works. :-)
>

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1348997] Review Request: backports.shutil_get_terminal_size - A backport of the get_terminal_size function

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348997

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1348997] Review Request: backports.shutil_get_terminal_size - A backport of the get_terminal_size function

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348997



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-backports-shutil_get_terminal_size-1.0.0-1.fc24 has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-2efe949d18

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1348997] Review Request: backports.shutil_get_terminal_size - A backport of the get_terminal_size function

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348997



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-backports-shutil_get_terminal_size-1.0.0-1.fc23 has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-10a3578e5a

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316



--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo  ---
hi
build fails:
[ERROR] Plugin org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin:1.3 or one of its
dependencies could not be resolved: Cannot access central
(https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2) in offline mode and the artifact
org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin:jar:1.3 has not been downloaded
from it before. -> [Help 1]
Please add 
BuildRequires: mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin)
and for prevent new build failure add also
BuildRequires: mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin)

Is available a new release:
https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/releases/tag/v0.14.3
Please, considering upgrade

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it



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

[Bug 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1349904] Review Request: perl-Module-Install-Contributors - Add an x_contributors section to your META.yml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349904

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova  ---
Source file is ok
Summary is ok
License is ok
Description is ok
URL and Source0 are ok
All tests passed
BuildRequires are ok

$ rpm -qp --requires perl-Module-Install-Contributors-0.001-1.fc25.noarch.rpm |
sort | uniq -c
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.0)
  1 perl(:VERSION) >= 5.6.0
  1 perl(Module::Install::Base)
  1 perl(base)
  1 perl(strict)
  1 perl(warnings)
  1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
Binary requires are Ok.

$ rpm -qp --provides perl-Module-Install-Contributors-0.001-1.fc25.noarch.rpm |
sort | uniq -c
  1 perl(Module::Install::Contributors) = 0.001
  1 perl-Module-Install-Contributors = 0.001-1.fc25
Binary provides are Ok.

$ rpmlint ./perl-Module-Install-Contributors*
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint is ok

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

[Bug 1349524] Review Request: perl-Scalar-Does - Check an object implements an interface

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349524

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova  ---
Source file is ok
Summary is ok
License is ok
Description is ok
URL and Source0 are ok
All tests passed
BuildRequires are ok

$ rpm -qp --requires perl-Scalar-Does-0.202-1.fc25.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.0)
  1 perl(:VERSION) >= 5.8.0
  1 perl(B)
  1 perl(Carp) >= 0
  1 perl(Exporter::Tiny) >= 0.026
  1 perl(Scalar::Util) >= 1.24
  1 perl(Type::Tiny) >= 0.004
  1 perl(Types::Standard) >= 0.004
  1 perl(URI::file)
  1 perl(base)
  1 perl(constant)
  1 perl(if)
  1 perl(lexical::underscore)
  1 perl(namespace::clean) >= 0.19
  1 perl(overload)
  1 perl(strict)
  1 perl(warnings)
  1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
Binary requires are Ok.

$ rpm -qp --provides perl-Scalar-Does-0.202-1.fc25.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c
  1 perl(IO::Detect) = 0.202
  1 perl(IO::Detect::SmartMatcher) = 0.202
  1 perl(Scalar::Does) = 0.202
  1 perl(Scalar::Does::MooseTypes) = 0.202
  1 perl(Scalar::Does::RoleChecker) = 0.202
  1 perl-Scalar-Does = 0.202-1.fc25
Binary provides are Ok.

$ rpmlint perl-Scalar-Does*
perl-Scalar-Does.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eq -> e, q,
seq
perl-Scalar-Does.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eq -> e, q, seq
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Rpmlint is ok

The package is 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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org