[Bug 1242056] Review Request: rubygem-chake - serverless configuration management tool for chef

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242056



--- Comment #20 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
Thank you Paulo, I really appreciate all the time you dedicated helping me
here.

I reverted the changes related to the fonts linking as observed by Vít.

Spec URL: https://ribeiro.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-chake.spec
SRPM URL: https://ribeiro.fedorapeople.org/rubygem-chake-0.13-7.fc25.src.rpm
Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14736148
COPR build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ribeiro/fedora/build/364902/

I also requested the new package as you pointed out.

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

tatyana  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(tatyana.e.nikolov |
   |a...@intel.com)|



--- Comment #5 from tatyana  ---
(In reply to Jarod Wilson from comment #4)
> Just let me know when there's an updated package I can look over, I think we
> should be pretty close once the initial review pass notes are addressed.
The package is updated. The new version libi40iw-0.5.224.tar.gz is available at
the URL provided above. All the changes can be viewed in the public git
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 1352091] Review Request: enunciate-core-rt - Enunciate core classes that are needed at runtime

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352091



--- Comment #1 from Ding-Yi Chen  ---
Mmm, perhaps I should go with the whole enunciate 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 1280054] Review Request: nodejs-array-reduce - `[].reduce() ` for old browsers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280054

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-07-01 21:00:14



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1282087] Review Request: nodejs-pad - Left and right string padding

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282087

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-07-01 20:51:17



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1304876] Review Request: nodejs-read-dir-files - Recursively read files from a directory

[bugzilla]

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

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-07-01 20:50:25



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1278154] Review Request: nodejs-csrf - Primary logic behind csrf tokens

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278154
Bug 1278154 depends on bug 1278157, which changed state.

Bug 1278157 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-uid-safe - URL and cookie safe UIDs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278157

   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 1278157] Review Request: nodejs-uid-safe - URL and cookie safe UIDs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278157

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-07-01 20:15:45



--- Comment #4 from Jared Smith  ---
Pushed to 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 1311245] Review Request: nodejs-latest-version - Get the latest version of a npm package

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1311245

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-07-01 20:14:03



--- Comment #7 from Jared Smith  ---
Pushed to Rawhide and F24.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1273134] Review Request: nodejs-tmatch - acilitate the `t.match() ` method in `tap`

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273134

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-07-01 20:13:01



--- Comment #7 from Jared Smith  ---
Pushed to Rawhide and F24.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1274806] Review Request: nodejs-decamelize - Convert a camelized string into a lowercased one

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274806

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-07-01 20:07:32



--- Comment #6 from Jared Smith  ---
Pushed to Rawhide and F24 branches.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352175] Review Request: gap-pkg-float - GAP access to mpfr, mpfi, mpc, fplll and cxsc

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352175

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1349075




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349075
[Bug 1349075] Review Request: cxsc - C++ library for Extended Scientific
Computing
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1349075] Review Request: cxsc - C++ library for Extended Scientific Computing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349075

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1352175




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352175
[Bug 1352175] Review Request: gap-pkg-float - GAP access to mpfr, mpfi,
mpc, fplll and cxsc
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352175] New: Review Request: gap-pkg-float - GAP access to mpfr, mpfi, mpc, fplll and cxsc

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352175

Bug ID: 1352175
   Summary: Review Request: gap-pkg-float - GAP access to mpfr,
mpfi, mpc, fplll and cxsc
   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/gap-pkg-float/gap-pkg-float.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-float/gap-pkg-float-0.7.4-1.fc25.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: jjames
Description: This package implements floating-point numbers within GAP, with
arbitrary precision, based on the C libraries FPLLL, MPFR, MPFI, MPC and CXSC.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1342749] Review Request: wildfly-core - The core runtime of WildFly

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342749



--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #3)
> Issues:
> 
> [!]: Javadoc package should not include shell script
>  /usr/share/javadoc/wildfly-core/javadoc.sh is included in
> wildfly-core-javadoc

Removed

Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/wildfly-core.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/wildfly-core-2.1.0-1.fc23.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1342749] Review Request: wildfly-core - The core runtime of WildFly

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342749



--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #4)
> There is dependency on a package that is not included in Fedora:
> 
> # https://gil.fedorapeople.org/syslog4j-0.9.46-1.fc23.src.rpm
> BuildRequires: mvn(org.syslog4j:syslog4j)
yes but the road is still too long for enable test suite ...

"... org.wildfly.core:wildfly-controller <->
org.wildfly.legacy.test:wildfly-legacy-spi dependency cycle"

... for now is skipped

(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #3)
> Issues:
> 
> [!]: Javadoc package should not include shell script
>  /usr/share/javadoc/wildfly-core/javadoc.sh is included in
> wildfly-core-javadoc
> 
> [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
> wildfly-core requires mvn(junit:junit)

used by wildfly-model-test module and for me in not necessary add extra
comments

> [!]: Package functions as described.
> Description should be clearer, it seems to include a CLI for management, but
> there are
> no provided scripts to lunch the CLI.
wildfly-cli is used as library by wildfly 10+ no needed to add extra (useless)
files

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

[Bug 1342749] Review Request: wildfly-core - The core runtime of WildFly

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342749



--- Comment #3 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
Issues:

[!]: Javadoc package should not include shell script
 /usr/share/javadoc/wildfly-core/javadoc.sh is included in
wildfly-core-javadoc

[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
wildfly-core requires mvn(junit:junit)

[!]: Package functions as described.
Description should be clearer, it seems to include a CLI for management, but
there are
no provided scripts to lunch the CLI.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1342749] Review Request: wildfly-core - The core runtime of WildFly

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342749



--- Comment #4 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
There is dependency on a package that is not included in Fedora:

# https://gil.fedorapeople.org/syslog4j-0.9.46-1.fc23.src.rpm
BuildRequires: mvn(org.syslog4j:syslog4j)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352169] Review Request: zerotier - Network Virtualization Everywhere https://www.zerotier.com/

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352169



--- Comment #1 from Kristof Szabo  ---
I think I should have mentioned explicitly that I'm seeking for a sponsor.

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

[Bug 1342749] Review Request: wildfly-core - The core runtime of WildFly

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342749



--- Comment #2 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
Package Review
==

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


= Added by me =
[!]: Javadoc package should not include shell script
 /usr/share/javadoc/wildfly-core/javadoc.sh is included in
wildfly-core-javadoc

= 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)",
 "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 269 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1342749
 -wildfly-core/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
 Template is outdated, bundling does not require 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.
wildfly-core requires mvn(junit:junit)
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
 Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It
 is pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
 subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
 when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
 utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use .mfiles file 

[Bug 1352169] Review Request: zerotier - Network Virtualization Everywhere https://www.zerotier.com/

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352169

Kristof Szabo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)




Referenced Bugs:

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

[Bug 1352169] New: Review Request: zerotier - Network Virtualization Everywhere https://www.zerotier.com/

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352169

Bug ID: 1352169
   Summary: Review Request: zerotier - Network Virtualization
Everywhere https://www.zerotier.com/
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: k...@lxsystems.de
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://lxsystems.de/zero/zerotier.spec
SRPM URL: http://lxsystems.de/zero/zerotier-1.1.4-2.src.rpm
Description: ZeroTier () is a GPLv3 licenced software based network
virtualization tool. The software source is maintained on GitHub
(https://github.com/zerotier/ZeroTierOne). The current binary installers
(distributed on zerotier.com) are built with a self-maintained non-standard
build system. The intention of this package is to properly integrate the
software into the Fedora/RedHat/CentOS eco-system.
Additional info: this is my first package submission, I hope it doesn't contain
huge issues. I'm not sure about how to support old init.d and new systemd based
systems in the same time: the %posttrans section of the .spec file contains the
respective logic (this is how it is done in the original zerotier rpms as
well). I'm almost sure this is not ok, though I have no idea how to manage this
in a clean way (I would like to avoid two separate srpms).  
The package builds on koji with "14733246 build (f25, zerotier-1.1.4-2.src.rpm)
completed successfully"
(http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14733246)
Fedora Account System Username: kris11

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1340513] Review Request: gap-pkg-gbnp - Computing Gröbner bases of noncommutative polynomials

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1340513



--- Comment #4 from Jerry James  ---
Sorry for the delay.  Had a little too much going on there for a few weeks.

I have:
- fixed the directory ownership issue in the doc package
- added a comment about including the test files
- removed the TeX files from the binary package

New URLs:
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-gbnp/gap-pkg-gbnp.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-gbnp/gap-pkg-gbnp-1.0.3-3.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 1343661] Rebase clufter component

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343661

errata-xmlrpc  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



-- 
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 1335988] Review Request: giac - Computer Algebra System, Symbolic calculus, Geometry

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #22 from Jerry James  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #21)
> No; maybe is related to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350911.

That could be, but doesn't that imply that the symbols in libgslcblas are not
used at all, just the symbols in the underlying blas library?  Or maybe
undefined symbols mess up the unused-direct-shlib-dependency check somehow.

This looks much better.  There is still an unowned directory problem, though. 
The giac-doc package puts files into the language-specific directories, which
it does not own, namely /usr/share/giac/doc/{de,el,en,es,fr,zh}.

Also, there are still a few issues from comment 17 that have not been addressed
completely:

- 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?

- 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.

- There is still one hidden-file-or-dir warning.  Is this file needed?
  giac-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/giac/examples/Exemples/analyse/._signal.xws

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1343661] Rebase clufter component

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343661

Jan Pokorný  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED
   Fixed In Version||clufter-0.57.0-1.el7



-- 
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 1350943] Review Request: python-releases - A Sphinx extension for changelog manipulation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350943



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-releases-1.2.0-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6c6d7e4b67

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1342749] Review Request: wildfly-core - The core runtime of WildFly

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342749

Jonny Heggheim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||heg...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|heg...@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 1350943] Review Request: python-releases - A Sphinx extension for changelog manipulation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350943



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-releases-1.2.0-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b397266058

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1273134] Review Request: nodejs-tmatch - acilitate the `t.match() ` method in `tap`

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273134



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1350943] Review Request: python-releases - A Sphinx extension for changelog manipulation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350943



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-releases-1.2.0-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-62f718cd64

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352141] Review Request: docker-latest - Automates deployment of containerized applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352141

Lokesh Mandvekar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jchal...@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 1352141] Review Request: docker-latest - Automates deployment of containerized applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352141



--- Comment #1 from Lokesh Mandvekar  ---
rather, openshift usually works with older/stable versions of docker, and
docker-latest would help us upgrade to the latest when there's a new upstream
release.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352141] New: Review Request: docker-latest - Automates deployment of containerized applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352141

Bug ID: 1352141
   Summary: Review Request: docker-latest - Automates deployment
of containerized applications
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: l...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://lsm5.fedorapeople.org/docker-latest/docker-latest.spec
SRPM URL: Coming soon

Description: 
Docker is an open-source engine that automates the deployment of any
application as a lightweight, portable, self-sufficient container that will
run virtually anywhere.

Docker containers can encapsulate any payload, and will run consistently on
and between virtually any server. The same container that a developer builds
and tests on a laptop will run at scale, in production*, on VMs, bare-metal
servers, OpenStack clusters, public instances, or combinations of the above.

Fedora Account System Username: lsm5

Note: There are many users who would need multiple versions of docker (stable
and the latest), like OpenShift, hence the package request

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1350943] Review Request: python-releases - A Sphinx extension for changelog manipulation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350943

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1350943] Review Request: python-releases - A Sphinx extension for changelog manipulation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350943



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-releases-1.2.0-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9cdcafb6fa

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1273134] Review Request: nodejs-tmatch - acilitate the `t.match() ` method in `tap`

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273134

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Tom Hughes  ---
Looks good now.

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

[Bug 1273134] Review Request: nodejs-tmatch - acilitate the `t.match() ` method in `tap`

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273134



--- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "ISC", "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1273134-nodejs-
 tmatch/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

= EXTRA items =

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
---
Checking: nodejs-tmatch-2.0.1-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
  

[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

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-07-01 14:21:56



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

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-07-01 14:21:46



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 #10 from William Moreno  ---
Hi.

I see than there are builds of this package in f23 and f24 but I do not see a
update in bodhi, please remember to request the update in bodhi.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 #8 from William Moreno  ---
Hi.

I see than there are builds of this package in f23 and f24 but I do not see a
update in bodhi, please remember to request the update in bodhi.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1348932] Review Request: bash-git-prompt - An informative and fancy bash prompt for Git users

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348932



--- Comment #2 from William Moreno  ---
Hello, I will take your review request, firt than all please fix the SPEC and
SRPM links, it is fine to link to a copr build but please use the correct URL
for the spec and srpm link.

Will be nice to see you do some informal reviews, while not mandatory is really
usefull to see if a candidate is already motivated to become a package
maintaier and also helps to see if you a proper undestand of Fedora Packaging
Guidelines.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1348932] Review Request: bash-git-prompt - An informative and fancy bash prompt for Git users

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348932

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 1351097] Review Request: python-uritemplate - Simple python library to deal with URI Templates ( RFC 6570)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1351097

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 1348006] Review Request: python-i3ipc - An improved Python library to control i3wm

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348006

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 1351138] Review Request: python-github3py - Python wrapper for the GitHub API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1351138

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 1274806] Review Request: nodejs-decamelize - Convert a camelized string into a lowercased one

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1274806



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1311245] Review Request: nodejs-latest-version - Get the latest version of a npm package

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1311245



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1351575] Review Request: rubygem-mime-types-data - A registry for information about MIME media type definitions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1351575



--- Comment #2 from Jun Aruga  ---
Hi,
I reviewed your files.


# The points that I would like to ask you, are 

1. Manifest.txt in "%files" section. Should it be moved to "%files doc" with
"%doc"?

2. "filename" of the description. I got the warning from rpmlint, though I
could understand you copied it from upstream README description. Should it be
updated correctly?

>  rubygem-mime-types-data.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US 
> filename -> file name, file-name, filament
>   **Warning for "filename" of the description.

Everything else is ok.



# The result of fedora-review tool

I just share the result of the tool.

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jaruga/git
 /fedora-packages/review/1351575-rubygem-mime-types-
 data/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
 /usr/share/gems/doc
[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.
[!]: 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]: 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 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]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
 Note: Package contains font files
[-]: 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.
[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 

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

[bugzilla]

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

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-07-01 12:54:56



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1269651] Review Request: nodejs-on-finished - Execute a callback when a HTTP request closes, finishes, or errors

[bugzilla]

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

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-07-01 12:54:37



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1275075] Review Request: nodejs-mime-type - The ultimate JavaScript content-type utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275075
Bug 1275075 depends on bug 1269658, which changed state.

Bug 1269658 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-mime-db - Database of all mime types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269658

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1269670] Review Request: nodejs-mime-types - The ultimate javascript content-type utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269670
Bug 1269670 depends on bug 1269658, which changed state.

Bug 1269658 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-mime-db - Database of all mime types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269658

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1269658] Review Request: nodejs-mime-db - Database of all mime types

[bugzilla]

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

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-07-01 12:54:03



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1273134] Review Request: nodejs-tmatch - acilitate the `t.match() ` method in `tap`

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273134



--- Comment #3 from Jared Smith  ---
Updating an ancient package review that slipped through the cracks:

Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-tmatch/nodejs-tmatch.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-tmatch/nodejs-tmatch-2.0.1-1.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 1273135] Review Request: nodejs-tap-parser - Parse the " Test Anything Protocol"

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273135

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-07-01 12:42:14



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1273133] Review Request: nodejs-events-to-array - Put a bunch of emited events in an array

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273133

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-07-01 12:41:34



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1273135] Review Request: nodejs-tap-parser - Parse the " Test Anything Protocol"

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273135
Bug 1273135 depends on bug 1273133, which changed state.

Bug 1273133 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-events-to-array - Put a bunch of 
emited events in an array
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273133

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1350943] Review Request: python-releases - A Sphinx extension for changelog manipulation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350943



--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-releases

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352065] Review Request: gst-transcoder - GStreamer Transcoding API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352065



--- Comment #1 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Updated packages to fix typedef file placement, pitivi now works.  Same URLs.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1350943] Review Request: python-releases - A Sphinx extension for changelog manipulation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350943

Patrick Creech  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Patrick Creech  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pcreech17/1350943
 -python-releases/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:
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1350943] Review Request: python-releases - A Sphinx extension for changelog manipulation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350943

Patrick Creech  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 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 1352065] New: Review Request: gst-transcoder - GStreamer Transcoding API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352065

Bug ID: 1352065
   Summary: Review Request: gst-transcoder - GStreamer Transcoding
API
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: limburg...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Description: GStreamer Transcoding API

SRPM:
https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/gst-transcoder/gst-transcoder-1.8.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/gst-transcoder/gst-transcoder.spec


This is needed by pitivi 0.96.  Caveat, this builds and runs but pitivi doesn't
see it.  Not sure what I'm missing.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352065] Review Request: gst-transcoder - GStreamer Transcoding API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352065

Jon Ciesla  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1351836




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1351836
[Bug 1351836] Pitivi 0.96 is available (0.95 will crash on Fedora 24)
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1331818] Review Request: singularity - Portable application stack packaging and runtime utility

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
singularity-2.0-9.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ee03c969d6

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1331818] Review Request: singularity - Portable application stack packaging and runtime utility

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System  ---
singularity-2.0-9.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-71231fe927

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352042] New: Review Request: perl-Specio - Type constraints and coercions for Perl

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352042

Bug ID: 1352042
   Summary: Review Request: perl-Specio - Type constraints and
coercions for Perl
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: p...@city-fan.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/perl-Specio/branches/fedora/perl-Specio.spec

SRPM URL:
http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/perl-Specio/perl-Specio-0.24-2.fc25.src.rpm

Description:
The Specio distribution provides classes for representing type constraints
and coercion, along with syntax sugar for declaring them.

Note that this is not a proper type system for Perl. Nothing in this
distribution will magically make the Perl interpreter start checking a value's
type on assignment to a variable. In fact, there's no built-in way to apply a
type to a variable at all.

Instead, you can explicitly check a value against a type, and optionally coerce
values to that type.

Fedora Account System Username: pghmcfc

Note: upstream for perl-DateTime is currently trialling using this (and
Params::CheckCompiler) in place of Params::Validate.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352091] New: Review Request: enunciate-core-rt - Enunciate core classes that are needed at runtime

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352091

Bug ID: 1352091
   Summary: Review Request: enunciate-core-rt - Enunciate core
classes that are needed at runtime
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: dc...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate-core-rt.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate-core-rt-1.31-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Enunciate core classes that are needed at runtime
Fedora Account System Username: dchen

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1331818] Review Request: singularity - Portable application stack packaging and runtime utility

[bugzilla]

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System  ---
singularity-2.0-9.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-9ad1b969a2

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1331818] Review Request: singularity - Portable application stack packaging and runtime utility

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
singularity-2.0-9.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b08ea02c43

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1331818] Review Request: singularity - Portable application stack packaging and runtime utility

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System  ---
singularity-2.0-9.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-7d10faed99

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1331818] Review Request: singularity - Portable application stack packaging and runtime utility

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System  ---
singularity-2.0-9.el5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 5.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-f2fd1c8bbc

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