[Bug 1335278] Review Request: mame - Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1335278



--- Comment #34 from Julian Sikorski  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #32)
> (In reply to Julian Sikorski from comment #31)
> > I'm sorry, the correct links are:
> > Spec URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/mame/mame.spec
> > SRPM URL: https://belegdol.fedorapeople.org/mame/mame-0.175-1.fc24.src.rpm
> 
> Review is finished but I still have an error like this
> https://github.com/mamedev/mame/issues/953 if I try to build with
> fedora-review.
> 
> Instead works on koji ...
> 
> Are you able to build 'mame' with mock on rawhide ?

Would you be OK approving the review request? The rawhide build issue is beyond
my ability to fix myself, and a bug has been filled with upstream. Rawhide is
at relatively early development stage atm so this issue is unlikely to affect
many at this point. Thank you.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352787] New: Review Request: xivo-client - A desktop client to the XiVO Open Source IPBX

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352787

Bug ID: 1352787
   Summary: Review Request: xivo-client - A desktop client to the
XiVO Open Source IPBX
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jo...@x-tnd.be
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/xivo-client/xivo-client.spec
SRPM URL:
http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/xivo-client/xivo-client-16.08-1.git1cf7719.trashy.src.rpm
Description: xivo-client is a graphical client to use with the XiVO Open Source
iPBX. It is used to manage calls and phone book.
Fedora Account System Username: trasher

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1303411] Review Request: geteltorito - El Torito boot image extractor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303411

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-07-05 00:58:54



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1303411] Review Request: geteltorito - El Torito boot image extractor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303411



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
geteltorito-0.6-3.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 1331818] Review Request: singularity - Portable application stack packaging and runtime utility

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System  ---
singularity-2.0-9.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 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   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-07-05 00:55:29



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352748] Review Request: nodejs-core-js - Standard JavaScript library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352748

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews),
   ||1269538 (IoT)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806
[Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538
[Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1352748] New: Review Request: nodejs-core-js - Standard JavaScript library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352748

Bug ID: 1352748
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-core-js - Standard JavaScript
library
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-core-js/nodejs-core-js.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-core-js/nodejs-core-js-2.4.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Standard JavaScript library
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

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

[Bug 1352743] Review Request: nodejs-indexof - A lame indexOf thing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352743

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews),
   ||1269538 (IoT)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806
[Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538
[Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1352743] New: Review Request: nodejs-indexof - A lame indexOf thing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352743

Bug ID: 1352743
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-indexof - A lame indexOf thing
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-indexof/nodejs-indexof.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-indexof/nodejs-indexof-0.0.3-2.fc24.src.rpm
Description: A lame indexOf thing
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

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

[Bug 1352091] Review Request: enunciate - Build-time enhancement tool for Java-based Web services projects

[bugzilla]

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

Ding-Yi Chen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(puntogil@libero.i
   ||t)



--- Comment #8 from Ding-Yi Chen  ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #7)
> Other question, You asked to enunciate-core-annotations package maintainer
> to import the missing modules and / or upgrade the package?
> 
> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/enunciate-core-annotations

Should enunciate-core-annotations agree to merge his package with this package,
what is the procedure? 
Should the enunciate-core-annotations be retired or something else need to be
done?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352725] New: Review Request: nodejs-make-generator-function - Returns an arbitrary generator function

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352725

Bug ID: 1352725
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-make-generator-function -
Returns an arbitrary generator function
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-make-generator-function/nodejs-make-generator-function.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-make-generator-function/nodejs-make-generator-function-1.1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Returns an arbitrary generator function
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

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

[Bug 1352725] Review Request: nodejs-make-generator-function - Returns an arbitrary generator function

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352725

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews),
   ||1269538 (IoT)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806
[Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538
[Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1221536] Review Request: nodejs-realize-package-specifier - Like npm-package-arg, but more so, producing full file paths and differentiating local tar and directory sources.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221536

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-07-04 19:27:50



--- Comment #17 from Jared Smith  ---
Closing since this is now in F24 and 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 1194923] Review Request: nodejs-ava - Simple test runner

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194923
Bug 1194923 depends on bug 1308645, which changed state.

Bug 1308645 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-max-timeout - The max amount of 
milliseconds you can pass to `setTimeout()`
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308645

   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 1308645] Review Request: nodejs-max-timeout - The max amount of milliseconds you can pass to `setTimeout ()`

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308645

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-07-04 19:26:50



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1308641] Review Request: nodejs-is-generator-fn - Check if something is a generator function

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308641

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-07-04 19:26:25



-- 
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 1194923] Review Request: nodejs-ava - Simple test runner

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194923
Bug 1194923 depends on bug 1308641, which changed state.

Bug 1308641 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-is-generator-fn - Check if 
something is a generator function
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308641

   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 1194923] Review Request: nodejs-ava - Simple test runner

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194923
Bug 1194923 depends on bug 1308637, which changed state.

Bug 1308637 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-serialize-error - Serialize an 
error into a plain object
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308637

   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 1308637] Review Request: nodejs-serialize-error - Serialize an error into a plain object

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308637

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-07-04 19:26:00



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352723] New: Review Request: nodejs-is-number-object - Is value a JS number object?

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352723

Bug ID: 1352723
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-is-number-object - Is value a
JS number object?
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-is-number-object/nodejs-is-number-object.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-is-number-object/nodejs-is-number-object-1.0.3-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Is the value a JavaScript number object?
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

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

[Bug 1352723] Review Request: nodejs-is-number-object - Is value a JS number object?

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352723

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews),
   ||1269538 (IoT)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806
[Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538
[Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1352714] New: Review Request: soup-sharp - libsoup C# bindings

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352714

Bug ID: 1352714
   Summary: Review Request: soup-sharp - libsoup C# bindings
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: kyle.ha...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
http://research.engineering.wustl.edu/~harmsk/downloads/fedora/soup-sharp.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/harmsk/sparkleshare/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00366213-soup-sharp/soup-sharp-2.42.2-3.fc25.src.rpm
Description: C# bindings for libsoup2.4
Fedora Account System Username: harmsk

I was contacted the maintainer of the sparkleshare package, Nikos Roussos, if I
would be interested in maintaining two of the dependencies for sparkleshare. I
had setup these builds on copr for these dependencies,
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/harmsk/sparkleshare/

Because this is my first package, I'm seeking a sponsor.

Successful koji build,
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14767677

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352711] New: Review Request: nodejs-is-generator-function - Determine if a function is an ES6 generator function or not

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352711

Bug ID: 1352711
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-is-generator-function -
Determine if a function is an ES6 generator function
or not
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-is-generator-function/nodejs-is-generator-function.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-is-generator-function/nodejs-is-generator-function-1.0.3-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Determine if a function is an ES6 generator function or not
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

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

[Bug 1352711] Review Request: nodejs-is-generator-function - Determine if a function is an ES6 generator function or not

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352711

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews),
   ||1269538 (IoT)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806
[Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538
[Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1352709] New: Review Request: nodejs-is-boolean-object - Is this value a JS Boolean?

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352709

Bug ID: 1352709
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-is-boolean-object - Is this
value a JS Boolean?
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-is-boolean-object/nodejs-is-boolean-object.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-is-boolean-object/nodejs-is-boolean-object-1.0.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Is this value a JS Boolean?
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

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

[Bug 1352709] Review Request: nodejs-is-boolean-object - Is this value a JS Boolean?

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352709

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews),
   ||1269538 (IoT)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806
[Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538
[Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1273150] Review Request: nodejs-only-shallow - Like `deeper` and `deepest`, but less strict, and with 90s flavor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273150

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-07-04 16:02:54



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1279990] Review Request: nodejs-array-foreach - Array#forEach ponyfill for older browsers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279990

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-07-04 16:02:11



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

[Bug 1278482] Review Request: nodejs-array-flatten - Flatten an array of nested arrays into a single flat array

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278482

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-07-04 16:00:02



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1278235] Review Request: nodejs-forwarded - Parse HTTP X-Forwarded-For header

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278235

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-07-04 15:54:19



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1278234] Review Request: nodejs-content-disposition - Create and parse Content-Disposition header

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278234

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-07-04 15:46:14



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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #5 from François Kooman  ---
Upstream bug regarding LDFLAGS override that still needs to be fixed:
https://github.com/zerotier/ZeroTierOne/issues/346

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

François Kooman  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||fkoo...@tuxed.net



--- Comment #4 from François Kooman  ---
I've been working on the same thing for the last month and was about to open a
review request when I found this one. I've been working with upstream on
packaging this and dealing with unbundling the included libraries in the `ext`
folder and following the Fedora oackaging guidelines to the best of my
knowledge and requesting updates to the various dependencies of the packages in
rawhide, f24 and epel.

All dependencies are sorted out now in rawhide and available in updates-testing
(F24) and epel-testing (EL7).

SPEC: https://fkooman.fedorapeople.org/zerotier-one/zerotier-one.spec
SRPM:
https://fkooman.fedorapeople.org/zerotier-one/zerotier-one-1.1.6-2.fc23.src.rpm

Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14766141

Upstream is working on builds for other platforms, especially CentOS 6 not
using systemd and for customers not wanting to enable EPEL on their machines,
that is why there is a spec file in the zerotier repo.

I'm already a Fedora packager and would only require a (formal) review, but am
using the `zerotier-one` name as the package name instead of `zerotier`. So not
sure if I should open a new request, or we can somehow work together on this?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352696] Review Request: nodejs-jshint - Static analysis tool for JavaScript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352696

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews),
   ||1269538 (IoT)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806
[Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538
[Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1352696] New: Review Request: nodejs-jshint - Static analysis tool for JavaScript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352696

Bug ID: 1352696
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-jshint - Static analysis tool
for JavaScript
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-jshint/nodejs-jshint.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-jshint/nodejs-jshint-2.9.2-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Static analysis tool for JavaScript
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

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

[Bug 1279127] Review Request: nodejs-each - Chained and parallel async iterator in one elegant function

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279127

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #18 from Tom Hughes  ---
Yes I tried on both F24 and Rawhide both inside and outside mock this morning
and couldn't get it to fail - no idea what happened yesterday!

Anyway, it looks fine now.

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

[Bug 1279127] Review Request: nodejs-each - Chained and parallel async iterator in one elegant function

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279127



--- Comment #17 from Jared Smith  ---
I've tried and tried to get the build to fail, and I can't get it to fail for
me either in mock or in Koji scratch builds.  I've added the fixdep for the
glob package.

Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-each/nodejs-each.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-each/nodejs-each-0.6.1-2.fc24.src.rpm

Scratch build in Koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14762526

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

Lubomir Rintel  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #12 from Lubomir Rintel  ---
Looks reasonable.

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 1352667] Review Request: licensecheck - Simple license checker for source files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352667



--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo  ---
maybe you should add also App-Licensecheck-v3.0.1/COPYRIGHT to %license macro

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352667] Review Request: licensecheck - Simple license checker for source files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352667



--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo  ---
Issues (non blocking):

[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "LGPL (unversioned/unknown version)", "Artistic (v2.0)", "GPL
 (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LLGPL", "LGPL (v2.1)", "ISC",
 "GPL (v1 or later)", "Public domain", "CDDL", "GPL (v3 or later)",
 "AFL-3.0", "BSL", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "Beerware", "BSD", "BSD (2
 clause)", "EPL-1.0", "GPL (v3)", "Artistic (v1.0)", "Apache (v2.0)",
 "FreeType", "GPL (v2 or later)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "MPL (v1.1)",
 "BSD (3 clause)", "Public domain GPL (v3)", "Unknown or generated",
 "GPL (v2)", "LGPL (v2 or v3)", "GPL (unversioned/unknown version)",
 "MPL (v2.0)", "LGPL (v2.1 or v3)". 13 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/gil/1352667-licensecheck/licensecheck.txt

These source files are without license headers:
App-Licensecheck-v3.0.1/bin/licensecheck
App-Licensecheck-v3.0.1/lib/App/Licensecheck.pm
Please, ask to upstream to confirm the
licensing of code and/or content/s, and ask to add license headers
   
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification

- Permissions on files are set properly.
  Note: See rpmlint output
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
licensecheck.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/licensecheck 555

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352667] Review Request: licensecheck - Simple license checker for source files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352667



--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
- Permissions on files are set properly.
  Note: See rpmlint output
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
  in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
  for the package is included in %license.
  Note: License file licensecheck is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "LGPL (unversioned/unknown version)", "Artistic (v2.0)", "GPL
 (v2) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LLGPL", "LGPL (v2.1)", "ISC",
 "GPL (v1 or later)", "Public domain", "CDDL", "GPL (v3 or later)",
 "AFL-3.0", "BSL", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "Beerware", "BSD", "BSD (2
 clause)", "EPL-1.0", "GPL (v3)", "Artistic (v1.0)", "Apache (v2.0)",
 "FreeType", "GPL (v2 or later)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "MPL (v1.1)",
 "BSD (3 clause)", "Public domain GPL (v3)", "Unknown or generated",
 "GPL (v2)", "LGPL (v2 or v3)", "GPL (unversioned/unknown version)",
 "MPL (v2.0)", "LGPL (v2.1 or v3)". 13 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/gil/1352667-licensecheck/licensecheck.txt

These source files are without license headers:
App-Licensecheck-v3.0.1/bin/licensecheck
App-Licensecheck-v3.0.1/lib/App/Licensecheck.pm
Please, ask to upstream to confirm the
licensing of code and/or content/s, and ask to add license headers
   
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification

[?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/bash-
 completion(kmod, dnf, cmake, rpmdevtools, python-pip, mercurial, bash-
 completion, subversion, rpmlint, yum, python3-pip, fedpkg, source-
 highlight, glib2, git-core), /usr/share/bash-
 completion/completions(kmod, dnf, cmake, rpmdevtools, python-pip,
 mercurial, firewalld, libappstream-glib, subversion, rpmlint, yum,
 bash-completion, python3-pip, fedpkg, source-highlight, glib2, git-
 core), /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/App(perl-Test-Harness, perl-CPAN)
[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.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[?]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 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]: 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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII 

[Bug 1176595] Review Request: hypre - High performance matrix preconditioners

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176595



--- Comment #20 from Dave Love  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #18)
> Hi Dave,
> 
> please update to latest release.

I'll have to check whether it works with the PETSc package, which was the main
reason for wanting hypre, but 2.11.1 isn't building.  I'll try to sort it out
when I have more time.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352666] Review Request: perl-Pod-Constants - Include constants from POD

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352666



--- Comment #5 from Sandro Mani  ---
Upstream is quick :)

"License is Artistic version 2, I forgot to update the README when I made
the previous release.

I will make a new release tomorrow which fixes the README and adds a
LICENSE file.

Thanks for the report"


Thanks for the review!

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #23 from Antonio Trande  ---
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #22)
> (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.

I don't know. For upstream is not a problem:
http://xcas.e.ujf-grenoble.fr/XCAS/viewtopic.php?f=19=1725

> 
> 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}.

Fixed.

> 
> 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?

PPC and aarch64 not supported.

> 
> - 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.

Data/doc files splitting is already a little confused.

> 
> - 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

Fixed.

Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/giac/giac.spec
SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/giac/giac-1.2.2-5.63.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 1352666] Review Request: perl-Pod-Constants - Include constants from POD

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352666

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo  ---
Thanks, 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 1352666] Review Request: perl-Pod-Constants - Include constants from POD

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352666



--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo  ---
Issues (non blocking):

[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1352666-perl-Pod-
 Constants/licensecheck.txt
README file report "Perl Artistic License, version 2 or later,
   OR the terms of the GNU General Public License, v3 or later."
this should not be interpreted as:  GPLv3+ or Artistic 2.0
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#License_tag
All source files are without license headers. Please, ask to upstream to
confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s, and ask to add license
headers

   
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification


[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.

[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352666] Review Request: perl-Pod-Constants - Include constants from POD

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352666



--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo  ---
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.
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1352666-perl-Pod-
 Constants/licensecheck.txt
README file report "Perl Artistic License, version 2 or later,
   OR the terms of the GNU General Public License, v3 or later."
this should not be interpreted as:  GPLv3+ or Artistic 2.0
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#License_tag
All source files are without license headers. Please, ask to upstream to
confirm the
licensing of code and/or content/s, and ask to add license headers
   
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification
[?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Pod(perl-Pod-Checker, perl-Pod-LaTeX,
 perl-podlators, perl-Pod-Usage, perl-Pod-Escapes, perl-Pod-Simple,
 perl-Pod-Parser, perl-Pod-Perldoc)
[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 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
[x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned.

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 

[Bug 1352667] Review Request: licensecheck - Simple license checker for source files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352667



--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo  ---
have time for this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1346382
?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352666] Review Request: perl-Pod-Constants - Include constants from POD

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352666

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||punto...@libero.it
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it
  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 1352667] Review Request: licensecheck - Simple license checker for source files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352667

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||punto...@libero.it
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it
  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 1352667] Review Request: licensecheck - Simple license checker for source files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352667



--- Comment #2 from Sandro Mani  ---
You beat me, I'm writing a fedora-devel post right now to explain that
devscripts-2.16.6 removed licensecheck and it lives in this package now.
Details on -devel shortly.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352667] Review Request: licensecheck - Simple license checker for source files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352667

Sandro Mani  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1352666




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352666
[Bug 1352666] Review Request: perl-Pod-Constants - Include constants from
POD
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352666] Review Request: perl-Pod-Constants - Include constants from POD

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352666

Sandro Mani  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1352667




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352667
[Bug 1352667] Review Request: licensecheck - Simple license checker for
source 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 1352667] New: Review Request: licensecheck - Simple license checker for source files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352667

Bug ID: 1352667
   Summary: Review Request: licensecheck - Simple license checker
for source files
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/licensecheck.spec
SRPM URL:
https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/licensecheck-3.0.1-1.fc25.src.rpm
Description: Simple license checker for source files
Fedora Account System Username: smani

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352666] New: Review Request: perl-Pod-Constants - Include constants from POD

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352666

Bug ID: 1352666
   Summary: Review Request: perl-Pod-Constants - Include constants
from POD
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Pod-Constants.spec
SRPM URL:
https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Pod-Constants-0.18-1.fc25.src.rpm
Description: Include constants from POD
Fedora Account System Username: smani

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1123579] Review Request: rubygem-colorize - Add color methods to String class

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1123579



--- Comment #15 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
This is blocking rubygem-bettercap and seems like there has been no updates in
the last 7+ months. Any updates from Christos/Steve?

If a reviewer is needed, I can do it

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

[Bug 1348160] Review Request: rubygem-em-proxy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348160

Fabio Alessandro Locati  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||f...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|f...@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 1348005] Review Request: rubygem-bettercap - A complete, modular, portable and easily extensible MITM framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348005

Fabio Alessandro Locati  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||f...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|f...@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 1348163] Review Request: rubygem-network-interface - A cross platform gem to help get network interface information

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348163

Fabio Alessandro Locati  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||f...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|f...@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 1348202] Review Request: rubygem-pcaprub - libpcap bindings for ruby

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348202

Fabio Alessandro Locati  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||f...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|f...@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 1348162] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162

Fabio Alessandro Locati  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||f...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|f...@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 1348206] Review Request: rubygem-packetfu - PacketFu is a mid-level packet manipulation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348206

Fabio Alessandro Locati  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||f...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|f...@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 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

Version|23  |rawhide



--- Comment #4 from William Moreno  ---
Hi, just a few comments:

1. Al new packages must go to rawhide, I hace just fixed the tag.

2. There is no need of %%clean seption at less than you want  to go to epel 6
or epel 5, also you must remove the rm -rf %{buildroot} command in the begginig
of %install.

3. Add ad comment to the %build section to avoid a rmplint issue about ampy
%%buil

4. The url tag shuld be https://github.com/magicmonty/bash-git-prompt
without the .git

5. There is not problem with use a already existing spec but update the
changelog:

Fri Aug 08 2014 Justin Zhang 

[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

Koustubh Sinkar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Version|rawhide |23



--- Comment #3 from Koustubh Sinkar  ---
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ksinkar/bash-git-prompt/master/bash-git-prompt.spec

SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/ksinkar/prelude/fedora-23-x86_64/00365282-bash-git-prompt/bash-git-prompt-2.5.1-1.fc23.src.rpm

The above are the updated URLs. I hope I do not have repeat the description
information. I have read through the packaging guidelines and am looking at
projects where I can do informal reviews. Will update this feed, of the
reviews, once I do them.

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

Jun Aruga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #6 from Jun Aruga  ---
(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #5)
> (In reply to Jun Aruga from comment #4)
> > Hi, I understand and checked your comments for 1. and 2. . No problem.
> > Please go a head.
> 
> You should change the "fedora-review" flag to "+" if you approved ... btw
> you should also change the state of the ticket to "assigned" and assign it
> to yoursefl, when you claiming the package for the review.

Okay, I APPROVED 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 1279125] Review Request: nodejs-csv-spectrum - Some csv test data for writing robust csv parsers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279125

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-07-04 10:23:45



--- Comment #6 from Jared Smith  ---
Built.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1279126] Review Request: nodejs-csv-generate - CSV and object generation implementing the Node.js `stream.Readable` API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279126

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-07-04 10:23:13



--- Comment #6 from Jared Smith  ---
Built.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 #5 from Vít Ondruch  ---
(In reply to Jun Aruga from comment #4)
> Hi, I understand and checked your comments for 1. and 2. . No problem.
> Please go a head.

You should change the "fedora-review" flag to "+" if you approved ... btw you
should also change the state of the ticket to "assigned" and assign it to
yoursefl, when you claiming the package for the review.

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

[Bug 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

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from William Moreno  ---
Looks Good for me, package aproved.

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

[Bug 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

Vít Ondruch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jar...@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 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



--- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
Added conflicts.

Spec URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-uritemplate.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-uritemplate-0.3.0-1.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 1278154] Review Request: nodejs-csrf - Primary logic behind csrf tokens

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278154

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1352321




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352321
[Bug 1352321] Review Request: nodejs-tsscmp - Timing safe string compare
using double HMAC
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352321] Review Request: nodejs-tsscmp - Timing safe string compare using double HMAC

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352321

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1278154




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278154
[Bug 1278154] Review Request: nodejs-csrf - Primary logic behind csrf
tokens
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 #6 from Jarod Wilson  ---
Using fedora-review's template, with notes added after anything marked as
!/fail:

Package Review
==

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


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

Waiving this issue, as this is the norm for libibverbs plugins.

= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
 generated". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/jwilson/review-libi40iw/licensecheck.txt
[x]: 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.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.

There should be a blank line between changelog entries

[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required

Present in the spec, which is apparently no longer okay. This is actually news
to me.

[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
 Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/libibverbs.d/i40iw.driver

I missed that this maybe should be marked %config(noreplace), but will also
accept justification for why it shouldn't be. If it isn't, i40iw.driver
modified by the user becomes i40iw.driver.rpmorig, I believe.

[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
 Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

Just a few little things to fix up as noted in this comment.

[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]: 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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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, 

[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 #3 from Vít Ondruch  ---
(In reply to Jun Aruga from comment #2)
> 1. Manifest.txt in "%files" section. Should it be moved to "%files doc" with
> "%doc"?

Ah, right. Missed that:

https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/vondruch/public_git/rubygem-mime-types-data.git/commit/?id=e4c1b6b15cc53ceafb69bee4061cf75943dd051c

I hope you don't mind I am not going to update the SRPM etc, since this is just
minor nit.

> 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.

This just missing from the dictionary, but I'd say that "filename" word is
widely accepted these days, so I don't consider this worth of any action.

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



--- Comment #2 from Michael Simacek  ---
Thank you for the review!

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

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

[bugzilla]

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

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1352300




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352300
[Bug 1352300] jboss-metadata-10.0.0.Final is available
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1218159] Review Request: python-closure-linter - Style checker for JavaScript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218159

Julien Enselme  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-07-04 07:03:06



--- Comment #10 from Julien Enselme  ---
> Closing?

I don't need this any more. So yes, I'll close this.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1218159] Review Request: python-closure-linter - Style checker for JavaScript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1218159



--- Comment #9 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Where are we with this? Closing?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1279127] Review Request: nodejs-each - Chained and parallel async iterator in one elegant function

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279127



--- Comment #15 from Tom Hughes  ---
Package Review
==

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


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


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1279127-nodejs-
 each/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 71680 bytes in 9 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]: 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.
[!]: 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:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
 Note: Mock build failed
 See: 

[Bug 1352091] Review Request: enunciate - Build-time enhancement tool for Java-based Web services projects

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo  ---
Other question, You asked to enunciate-core-annotations package maintainer to
import the missing modules and / or upgrade the package?

https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/enunciate-core-annotations

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

[Bug 1352471] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive-template - Template subcomponent for Expressive

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352471

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1352553
   ||(zendframework/zend-express
   ||ive-twigrender)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352553
[Bug 1352553] Review Request:
php-zendframework-zend-expressive-twigrenderer - Twig integration for
Expressive
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352538] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive-helpers - Helper/ Utility classes for Expressive

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352538

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1352553
   ||(zendframework/zend-express
   ||ive-twigrender)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352553
[Bug 1352553] Review Request:
php-zendframework-zend-expressive-twigrenderer - Twig integration for
Expressive
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352553] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive-twigrenderer - Twig integration for Expressive

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352553

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1352538
   ||(zendframework/zend-express
   ||ive-helpers), 1352471
   ||(zendframework/zend-express
   ||ive-template)
  Alias||zendframework/zend-expressi
   ||ve-twigrender




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352471
[Bug 1352471] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive-template -
Template subcomponent for Expressive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352538
[Bug 1352538] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive-helpers -
Helper/Utility classes for Expressive
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352553] New: Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive-twigrenderer - Twig integration for Expressive

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352553

Bug ID: 1352553
   Summary: Review Request:
php-zendframework-zend-expressive-twigrenderer - Twig
integration for Expressive
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/remicollet/remirepo/aada5d750b36bae3a034e25367af65f29c0bb777/php/zend/php-zendframework-zend-expressive-twigrenderer/php-zendframework-zend-expressive-twigrenderer.spec
SRPM URL:
http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-zendframework-zend-expressive-twigrenderer-1.1.1-1.remi.src.rpm
Description: 
Provides Twig integration for Expressive.

Documentation: http://zend-expressive.readthedocs.io/


Fedora Account System Username: remi

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352549] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive-platesrenderer - Plates integration for Expressive

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352549

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1352471
   ||(zendframework/zend-express
   ||ive-template), 1352538
   ||(zendframework/zend-express
   ||ive-helpers)
  Alias||zendframework/zend-expressi
   ||ve-platesrend




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352471
[Bug 1352471] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive-template -
Template subcomponent for Expressive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352538
[Bug 1352538] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive-helpers -
Helper/Utility classes for Expressive
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352471] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive-template - Template subcomponent for Expressive

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352471

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1352549
   ||(zendframework/zend-express
   ||ive-platesrend)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352549
[Bug 1352549] Review Request:
php-zendframework-zend-expressive-platesrenderer - Plates integration for
Expressive
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352538] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive-helpers - Helper/ Utility classes for Expressive

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352538

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1352549
   ||(zendframework/zend-express
   ||ive-platesrend)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352549
[Bug 1352549] Review Request:
php-zendframework-zend-expressive-platesrenderer - Plates integration for
Expressive
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352549] New: Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive-platesrenderer - Plates integration for Expressive

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352549

Bug ID: 1352549
   Summary: Review Request:
php-zendframework-zend-expressive-platesrenderer -
Plates integration for Expressive
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/remicollet/remirepo/99e84571ea0fb98dcc1821d856146ecfcc4089ee/php/zend/php-zendframework-zend-expressive-platesrenderer/php-zendframework-zend-expressive-platesrenderer.spec
SRPM URL:
http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-zendframework-zend-expressive-platesrenderer-1.1.0-1.remi.src.rpm
Description: 
Provides integration with Plates for Expressive.

Documentation: http://zend-expressive.readthedocs.io/

Fedora Account System Username: remi

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 - Build-time enhancement tool for Java-based Web services projects

[bugzilla]

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

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(puntogil@libero.i |
   |t)  |



--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Ding-Yi Chen from comment #4)
> Thanks gil,
> 
> Come to think of it, since I also need enunciate-core and
> enunciate-jersey-rt, should I make the enunciate as main package instead,
> and provide enunciate-core-rt, enunciate-core, enunciate-jeresy-rt as
> sub-packages?

yes, is ok for me. but is available a new version:
https://github.com/stoicflame/enunciate/releases/tag/v2.5.0
you should add a comment, in the spec file, as to why you want to import this
old version

maybe you could remove:
%mvn_package ":enunciate-parent" enunciate
and change or remove the main package in

%files -f .mfiles-%{name}-parent
%license license.txt notice.txt



%files core-rt -f .mfiles-%{name}-core-rt
%doc README.md
%license license.txt notice.txt

or

%files parent -f .mfiles-%{name}-parent
%license license.txt notice.txt

...

i dont understand this:

# remove enunciate-core-annotations, because it is in other package 
rm -f %{buildroot}/%{_javadir}/enunciate/enunciate-core-annotations.jar
rm -f
%{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/maven-metadata/enunciate-enunciate-core-annotations.xml
rm -f
%{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/maven-poms/enunciate/enunciate-core-annotations.pom

you should disable this module, and use the other package

and for last you should add missing build-requires:
mvn(com.sun.jersey:jersey-server:1)
mvn(com.sun.jersey:jersey-servlet:1)
mvn(com.sun.jersey.contribs:jersey-spring:1)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352538] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive-helpers - Helper/ Utility classes for Expressive

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352538

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1352539
   ||(zendframework/zend-express
   ||ive-zendviewre)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352539
[Bug 1352539] Review Request:
php-zendframework-zend-expressive-zendviewrenderer - zend-view PhpRenderer
integration for Expressive
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352539] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive-zendviewrenderer - zend-view PhpRenderer integration for Expressive

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352539

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1352538
   ||(zendframework/zend-express
   ||ive-helpers), 1352471
   ||(zendframework/zend-express
   ||ive-template)
  Alias||zendframework/zend-expressi
   ||ve-zendviewre




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352471
[Bug 1352471] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive-template -
Template subcomponent for Expressive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352538
[Bug 1352538] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive-helpers -
Helper/Utility classes for Expressive
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352471] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive-template - Template subcomponent for Expressive

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352471

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1352539
   ||(zendframework/zend-express
   ||ive-zendviewre)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352539
[Bug 1352539] Review Request:
php-zendframework-zend-expressive-zendviewrenderer - zend-view PhpRenderer
integration for Expressive
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352539] New: Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive-zendviewrenderer - zend-view PhpRenderer integration for Expressive

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352539

Bug ID: 1352539
   Summary: Review Request:
php-zendframework-zend-expressive-zendviewrenderer -
zend-view PhpRenderer integration for Expressive
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/remicollet/remirepo/0983867befd110f56814b6e13504a5990e67d14f/php/zend/php-zendframework-zend-expressive-zendviewrenderer/php-zendframework-zend-expressive-zendviewrenderer.spec
SRPM URL:
http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-zendframework-zend-expressive-zendviewrenderer-1.1.0-1.remi.src.rpm
Description: 
zend-view PhpRenderer integration for Expressive.

Fedora Account System Username: remi

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352469] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive-router - Router subcomponent for Expressive

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352469

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1352538
   ||(zendframework/zend-express
   ||ive-helpers)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352538
[Bug 1352538] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive-helpers -
Helper/Utility classes for Expressive
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352538] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive-helpers - Helper/ Utility classes for Expressive

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352538

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1352469
   ||(zendframework/zend-express
   ||ive-router)
  Alias||zendframework/zend-expressi
   ||ve-helpers




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352469
[Bug 1352469] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive-router -
Router subcomponent for Expressive
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352538] New: Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive-helpers - Helper/ Utility classes for Expressive

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352538

Bug ID: 1352538
   Summary: Review Request:
php-zendframework-zend-expressive-helpers -
Helper/Utility classes for Expressive
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/remicollet/remirepo/8e5ee0050fbffd4c1a44c74122f33e7219d1dedf/php/zend/php-zendframework-zend-expressive-helpers/php-zendframework-zend-expressive-helpers.spec
SRPM URL:
http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-zendframework-zend-expressive-helpers-2.0.0-1.remi.src.rpm
Description: 
Helper classes for Expressive.

Fedora Account System Username: remi

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352516] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive-aurarouter - Aura.Router integration for Expressive

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352516

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1352536
   ||(zendframework/zend-express
   ||ive)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352536
[Bug 1352536] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive - PSR-7
Middleware Microframework based on Stratigility
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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 1352520] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive-fastroute - FastRoute integration for Expressive

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352520

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1352536
   ||(zendframework/zend-express
   ||ive)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352536
[Bug 1352536] Review Request: php-zendframework-zend-expressive - PSR-7
Middleware Microframework based on Stratigility
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list 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