[Bug 1347898] Review Request: nodejs-randomatic - Generate randomized strings of a specified length

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347898

Eduardo Mayorga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Eduardo Mayorga  ---
Rpmlint
---
Checking: nodejs-randomatic-1.1.5-3.fc25.noarch.rpm
  nodejs-randomatic-1.1.5-3.fc25.src.rpm
nodejs-randomatic.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-randomatic.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/randomatic/node_modules/kind-of
/usr/lib/node_modules/kind-of
nodejs-randomatic.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/randomatic/node_modules/is-number
/usr/lib/node_modules/is-number
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

It looks good.
PACKAGE APPROVED.

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

[Bug 1357176] Review Request: nodejs-trim-newlines - Trim newlines from the start and/ or end of a string

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357176

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews),
   ||1269538 (IoT), 1031982,
   ||1195743




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=1031982
[Bug 1031982] nodejs-tap-6.2.0 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195743
[Bug 1195743] nodejs-yargs-4.8.0 is available
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 1357176] New: Review Request: nodejs-trim-newlines - Trim newlines from the start and/ or end of a string

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357176

Bug ID: 1357176
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-trim-newlines - Trim newlines
from the start and/or end of a string
   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-trim-newlines/nodejs-trim-newlines.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-trim-newlines/nodejs-trim-newlines-1.0.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Trim newlines from the start and/or end of a string
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 1347898] Review Request: nodejs-randomatic - Generate randomized strings of a specified length

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347898



--- Comment #2 from Jared Smith  ---
Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-randomatic/nodejs-randomatic.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-randomatic/nodejs-randomatic-1.1.5-3.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 1191062] Review Request: nodejs-samsam - Value identification and comparison functions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191062



--- Comment #3 from Eduardo Mayorga  ---
Any update?

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

[Bug 1356118] Review Request: nodejs-yallist - Yet Another Linked List

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356118



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

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

[Bug 1347898] Review Request: nodejs-randomatic - Generate randomized strings of a specified length

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347898

Eduardo Mayorga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||e...@mayorgalinux.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|e...@mayorgalinux.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Eduardo Mayorga  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- LICENSE file has the execution bit set. Please remove it in %prep to silent
the rpmlint error.


= 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/mayorga/reviews/1347898-nodejs-randomatic/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[!]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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]: 

[Bug 1346060] Review Request: python-pintail-asciidoc - Use AsciiDoc pages in Pintail sites

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346060

Eduardo Mayorga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1334112




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334112
[Bug 1334112] Review Request: pintail - build web sites from plain text
markup
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1334112] Review Request: pintail - build web sites from plain text markup

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334112

Eduardo Mayorga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||e...@mayorgalinux.com
 Blocks||1346060
   Assignee|ignate...@redhat.com|e...@mayorgalinux.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from Eduardo Mayorga  ---
- Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM. Please update the Spec
you provide in Spec URL.

- License text not included. You must include it by using the %license macro.
  See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

- Upstream changed license from LGPLv2+ to GPLv2+, but they did not update the
copyright statement in the beginning of every source code file. Please report
this. Also, the COPYING file included in the tarball is LGPLv2, which does not
reflect the change in
https://github.com/projectmallard/pintail/commit/a15500c3fd936f58bc88f5a8aa47dd365d8414b2

- rpmlint complains:
pintail.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency python3-urllib3 -- this is an
automatic dependency, no need to add it in the Spec
pintail.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized -- please use Build web sites...
pintail.noarch: E: description-line-too-long -- no more than 79 characters per
line

- Changelog format is not consistent for all entries.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346060
[Bug 1346060] Review Request: python-pintail-asciidoc  - Use AsciiDoc pages
in Pintail sites
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1356907] Review Request: rust - The Rust Programming Language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356907



--- Comment #3 from Josh Stone  ---
Nearly 6 hours later, armv7hl failed a few run-pass tests like so:

> error: linking with `cc` failed: exit code: 1
> note: "cc" "-Wl,--as-needed" "-Wl,-z,noexecstack" "-L" 
> "/builddir/build/BUILD/rustc-1.10.0/armv7-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/stage2/lib/rustlib/armv7-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/lib"
>  "armv7-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/test/run-pass/vec-macro-no-std.0.o" "-o" 
> "armv7-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/test/run-pass/vec-macro-no-std.stage2-armv7-unknown-linux-gnueabihf"
>  "-Wl,--gc-sections" "-pie" "-Wl,-O1" "-nodefaultlibs" "-L" 
> "armv7-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/test/run-pass/" "-L" 
> "armv7-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/test/run-pass/vec-macro-no-std.stage2-armv7-unknown-linux-gnueabihf.run-pass.libaux"
>  "-L" "armv7-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/rt" "-L" 
> "/builddir/build/BUILD/rustc-1.10.0/armv7-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/stage2/lib/rustlib/armv7-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/lib"
>  "-Wl,-Bstatic" "-Wl,-Bdynamic" "-L" 
> "/builddir/build/BUILD/rustc-1.10.0/armv7-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/stage2/lib/rustlib/armv7-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/lib"
>  "-l" "std-e8edd0fd" "-l" "dl" "-l" "pthread" "-l" "gcc_s" "-l" "c" "-l" "m" 
> "-l" "rt" "-l" "util" "-l" "compiler-rt"
> note: /usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/libc_nonshared.a(elf-init.oS): undefined 
> reference to symbol '__aeabi_unwind_cpp_pr0@@GCC_3.5'
> /lib/libgcc_s.so.1: error adding symbols: DSO missing from command line
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
> error: aborting due to previous error

I think there's a c/gcc_s interdependency that's not correctly managed here. 
At least on x86_64, the default C link line has something like this:

> -lgcc --as-needed -lgcc_s --no-as-needed -lc -lgcc --as-needed -lgcc_s 
> --no-as-needed

i.e. -lgcc_s is positioned twice as-needed, before and after -lc.

I will see if I can reproduce this locally and file an rust issue.


For now, I think we should leave rust.spec as i686/x86_64 only, citing Tier 1
status.

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

[Bug 1264164] Review Request: python-rdoupdate - Manipulation and validation of YAML update files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264164

Haïkel Guémar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jruzi...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(jruzicka@redhat.c
   ||om)



--- Comment #6 from Haïkel Guémar  ---
I think we should close this ticket as rdoupdate is deprecated.

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

[Bug 1228115] Review Request: openstack-neutron-lbaas - Openstack Networking LBaaS plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228115

Haïkel Guémar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||karlthe...@gmail.com
  Component|Package Review  |Package Review
Version|rawhide |trunk
 Blocks||1329341 (RDO-NEWTON)
Product|Fedora  |RDO




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329341
[Bug 1329341] Tracker: Blockers and Review requests for new RDO Newton
packages
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1228118] Review Request: openstack-neutron-fwaas - Openstack Networking FWaaS plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228118

Haïkel Guémar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||karlthe...@gmail.com
  Component|Package Review  |Package Review
Version|rawhide |trunk
 Blocks||1329341 (RDO-NEWTON)
Product|Fedora  |RDO




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329341
[Bug 1329341] Tracker: Blockers and Review requests for new RDO Newton
packages
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1228106] Review Request: openstack-neutron-vpnaas - Openstack Networking VPNaaS plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228106

Haïkel Guémar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||karlthe...@gmail.com
  Component|Package Review  |Package Review
Version|rawhide |trunk
 Blocks||1329341 (RDO-NEWTON)
Product|Fedora  |RDO



--- Comment #7 from Haïkel Guémar  ---
Wait this is not a Fedora Review but a RDO review


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329341
[Bug 1329341] Tracker: Blockers and Review requests for new RDO Newton
packages
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1356625] Review Request: python-cotyledon - Framework for defining long-running services

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356625



--- Comment #14 from Alan Pevec  ---
nitpick:
- changelog entries do not match Version

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

[Bug 1309909] Review Request: python3-tornado - Scalable, non-blocking web server and tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309909

Orion Poplawski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Whiteboard||NotReady



--- Comment #5 from Orion Poplawski  ---
This is waiting on a python3-pycurl package.

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

[Bug 1349075] Review Request: cxsc - C++ library for Extended Scientific Computing

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
cxsc-2.5.4-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-73a734e090

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

[Bug 1349075] Review Request: cxsc - C++ library for Extended Scientific Computing

[bugzilla]

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1353598] Review Request: hibernate4 - Relational persistence and query service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353598



--- Comment #12 from gil cattaneo  ---
thanks!

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

[Bug 1353598] Review Request: hibernate4 - Relational persistence and query service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353598



--- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/hibernate4

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

[Bug 1302909] Review Request: drupal8 - An open source content management platform

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302909



--- Comment #7 from Shawn Iwinski  ---
Updated to latest version (i.e. 8.1.6)



Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/siwinski/rpms/03ebf148dcd48fba531c813caf5185a273f04121/drupal8/drupal8.spec

SRPM URL: https://siwinski.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/drupal8-8.1.6-1.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 1356592] Review Request: shibboleth-java-parent-v3 - Shibboleth Project V3 Super POM

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356592

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |




Referenced Bugs:

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

[Bug 1353598] Review Request: hibernate4 - Relational persistence and query service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353598

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |




Referenced Bugs:

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

[Bug 1353598] Review Request: hibernate4 - Relational persistence and query service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353598



--- Comment #10 from gil cattaneo  ---
Thanks for the review!

create new SCM requests:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/6452
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/6453

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

[Bug 1357064] Review Request: lumina-desktop - A lightweight, portable desktop environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357064

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ngomp...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa  ---
Please don't use Suggests if you want it to be installed by default. Use
Recommends instead. libsolv-based dependency resolvers use "Suggests" as hints
for other dependency requirements (Requires/Recommends).

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

[Bug 1353598] Review Request: hibernate4 - Relational persistence and query service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353598

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #9 from Jerry James  ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #8)
> No, i hope, but seem all JBoss and Hibenate projects switch their license to
> ASL 2.0 in the near future
> Please, attached the generated licensecheck.txt files is is available. so 
> take a look in the source code headers ...

On second thought, let's not worry about it.  The license is clearly stated,
and the files with JBoss copyrights have package names that put them firmly
into the hibernate namespace, so even if they were not hibernate classes
originally, they are now.  I think it's fine.  This package is 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 1357114] Review Request: ceph-installer - An HTTP API for deployment of Ceph clusters

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357114



--- Comment #3 from tser...@redhat.com ---
Thanks, Ken.

I updated the spec file and source RPM in the URLs.

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

[Bug 1349075] Review Request: cxsc - C++ library for Extended Scientific Computing

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/cxsc

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

[Bug 1349075] Review Request: cxsc - C++ library for Extended Scientific Computing

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #11 from Jerry James  ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #10)
> Someone have noticed of this change in the development list?

Yes, see the thread here:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/XGXCCAJNEOIEN3KK6TN2657LSIGZGB3N/

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 1356739] Review Request: zulucrypt - Qt GUI front end to cryptsetup

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356739



--- Comment #10 from gil cattaneo  ---
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets?rd=Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database

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

[Bug 1356657] Review Request: lxqt-wallet - Create a kwallet like functionality for LXQt

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356657



--- Comment #11 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #7)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #4)
> > Please, remove:
> > BuildRequires:  gcc-c++
> 
> Some people like to see gcc etc. explicitly listed, anyways fixed.
Please, revert this change i was not aware of
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequires_and_Requires

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

[Bug 1349075] Review Request: cxsc - C++ library for Extended Scientific Computing

[bugzilla]

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

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #10 from gil cattaneo  ---


(In reply to Jerry James from comment #9)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #5)
> > maybe you can safety remove jquery
> > from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/jQuery
> > ln -fs %{_datadir}/javascript/jquery/[jquery VERSION]/jquery.min.js [BUNDLE
> > LIBRARY PATH]/jquery.js
> 
> Oh, I didn't know the migration was ready to happen.  Great!  I will make
> this change.
> 
> Except it doesn't work.  Doxygen inserts a copy of jquery 1.7.1.  I tried
> using the system version of jquery 1 (currently 1.11.2), and the sidebar
> became blank, and overlapped the main region of the window.  Apparently
> js-jquery-migrate is required, but that means editing every single HTML file
> to insert the appropriate magic.  Ugh.  I don't want to do this.  The right
> fix is to update doxygen so that it can use jquery 1.9 or later, then the
> symlink trick will work.  There is an upstream bug to do this:
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=768492.

leave the bundle js file 

> As for BuildRequires: gcc-c++, that is now required.  See
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequires_and_Requires.  Apparently rpmlint has not yet
> been updated to reflect this change.

Someone have noticed of this change in the development list?

> I will contact upstream about the incorrect FSF address.  They moved in,
> what, 2005?  It's strange how many projects haven't noticed that more than a
> decade later.

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 1356594] Review Request: shibboleth-java-support - Java Support for Shibbleth projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356594



--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo  ---
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14909734

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

[Bug 1349075] Review Request: cxsc - C++ library for Extended Scientific Computing

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #9 from Jerry James  ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #5)
> maybe you can safety remove jquery
> from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/jQuery
> ln -fs %{_datadir}/javascript/jquery/[jquery VERSION]/jquery.min.js [BUNDLE
> LIBRARY PATH]/jquery.js

Oh, I didn't know the migration was ready to happen.  Great!  I will make this
change.

Except it doesn't work.  Doxygen inserts a copy of jquery 1.7.1.  I tried using
the system version of jquery 1 (currently 1.11.2), and the sidebar became
blank, and overlapped the main region of the window.  Apparently
js-jquery-migrate is required, but that means editing every single HTML file to
insert the appropriate magic.  Ugh.  I don't want to do this.  The right fix is
to update doxygen so that it can use jquery 1.9 or later, then the symlink
trick will work.  There is an upstream bug to do this:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=768492.

As for BuildRequires: gcc-c++, that is now required.  See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequires_and_Requires.
 Apparently rpmlint has not yet been updated to reflect this change.

I will contact upstream about the incorrect FSF address.  They moved in, what,
2005?  It's strange how many projects haven't noticed that more than a decade
later.

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

[Bug 1356657] Review Request: lxqt-wallet - Create a kwallet like functionality for LXQt

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356657



--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/lxqt-wallet

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

[Bug 1356657] Review Request: lxqt-wallet - Create a kwallet like functionality for LXQt

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356657

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST



--- Comment #9 from Raphael Groner  ---
Thanks again for the good work!

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

[Bug 1356592] Review Request: shibboleth-java-parent-v3 - Shibboleth Project V3 Super POM

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356592

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1356592] Review Request: shibboleth-java-parent-v3 - Shibboleth Project V3 Super POM

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356592



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
shibboleth-java-parent-v3-8-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora
24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5f9fda5b2f

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

[Bug 1357114] Review Request: ceph-installer - An HTTP API for deployment of Ceph clusters

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357114

Ken Dreyer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||ktdre...@ktdreyer.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|f...@fcami.net



--- Comment #2 from Ken Dreyer  ---
I think fcami said he'd review this, so I'll assign this to him in the hope
that's still the case :)

You can remove the following bits that were copied from upstream's spec file:

%global commitdate 20160713
%global commit 4341b4c4f372a3d2f22991743af7df645ffe6542
%global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})

These are only relevant when packaging (prerelease) Git snapshots and they are
not necessary for Fedora downstream.

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

[Bug 1354210] Review Request: xviewer - Fast and functional graphics viewer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354210



--- Comment #7 from Raphael Groner  ---
… And please add ChangeLog files:

%doc help-ChangeLog
%doc plugins-ChangeLog
%doc po-ChangeLog

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

[Bug 1356657] Review Request: lxqt-wallet - Create a kwallet like functionality for LXQt

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356657

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo  ---
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 1354210] Review Request: xviewer - Fast and functional graphics viewer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354210



--- Comment #6 from Raphael Groner  ---
Created attachment 1180246
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1180246=edit
licensecheck.txt

Please also poke upstream about sources without license header:

xviewer-1.0.4/cut-n-paste/toolbar-editor/eggmarshalers.c
xviewer-1.0.4/cut-n-paste/toolbar-editor/eggmarshalers.h
xviewer-1.0.4/cut-n-paste/toolbar-editor/eggtypebuiltins.c
xviewer-1.0.4/cut-n-paste/toolbar-editor/eggtypebuiltins.h

xviewer-1.0.4/src/xviewer-image-jpeg.h
xviewer-1.0.4/src/xviewer-image-save-info.c
xviewer-1.0.4/src/xviewer-image-save-info.h
xviewer-1.0.4/src/xviewer-pixbuf-util.c
xviewer-1.0.4/src/xviewer-pixbuf-util.h
xviewer-1.0.4/src/xviewer-save-as-dialog-helper.c
xviewer-1.0.4/src/xviewer-save-as-dialog-helper.h
xviewer-1.0.4/src/xviewer-scroll-view.c
xviewer-1.0.4/src/xviewer-scroll-view.h
xviewer-1.0.4/src/xviewer-transform.h
xviewer-1.0.4/src/xviewer-uri-converter.c
xviewer-1.0.4/src/xviewer-uri-converter.h

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

[Bug 1354210] Review Request: xviewer - Fast and functional graphics viewer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354210



--- Comment #5 from Mario Blättermann  ---
Note: License file license.page is not marked as %license

This is bogus, the mentioned *.page file is part of the user documentation, and
as such not to be considered as a license file for inclusion in %license.

I will have a deeper look at the issues generated by fedora-review tomorrow.

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

[Bug 1353598] Review Request: hibernate4 - Relational persistence and query service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353598



--- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #7)
> Issues
> ==
> - Multiple licensing issues must be explained with a comment in the spec
> file.
>   For some ideas on how this might be done, see
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
> 
> - The portions of the code with the Apache license have JBoss copyright
> notices.
>   Is this bundled code?

No, i hope, but seem all JBoss and Hibenate projects switch their license to
ASL 2.0 in the near future
Please, attached the generated licensecheck.txt files is is available. so 
take a look in the source code headers ...

> - There are some file copies without -p, for SOURCE1 through SOURCE10. 
> Perhaps
>   -p should be added to preserve timestamps.

Done

> - Could you ask upstream to update lgpl.txt to a version with the correct FSF
>   address?  Version 2.1 is available here:
>   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt

reported @ https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-10961

but usually hibernate developer dont care about these problems

> Package Review
> ==
> = MUST items =

> [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
>  must be documented in the spec.

Some wrote above

> = SHOULD items =
> 
> Generic:
> [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Not available test deps as commented in the spec file 
> [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
>  files.
Done

Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/hibernate4.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/hibernate4-4.3.11-1.fc23.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1354210] Review Request: xviewer - Fast and functional graphics viewer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354210



--- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- 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 license.page is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
=> OK: Plugins folder.

[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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
 generated", "GPL (v2 or later) LGPL (v2 or later)", "MIT/X11 (BSD
 like)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)". 43 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora-
 review/1354210-xviewer/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
=> Add MIT to license tag and a comment about license breakdown. I'll
   attach full licensetext.txt content.

[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/help/ar, /usr/share/help/th,
 /usr/share/help/pa, /usr/share/help/da
=> Propably wrong installation. 

[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/help/lv,
 /usr/share/help/fi, /usr/share/help/uk, /usr/share/help/de,
 /usr/share/help/da, /usr/share/help/sv, /usr/share/help/hu,
 /usr/share/help/fr, /usr/share/help/pl, /usr/share/help/C,
 /usr/share/help/ja, /usr/share/help/es, /usr/share/help/eu,
 /usr/share/help, /usr/share/help/ar, /usr/share/help/ca,
 /usr/share/help/ro, /usr/share/help/el, /usr/share/help/en_GB,
 /usr/share/help/gl, /usr/share/help/pa, /usr/share/help/pt_BR,
 /usr/share/help/oc, /usr/share/help/it, /usr/share/help/sl,
 /usr/share/help/zh_TW, /usr/share/help/te, /usr/share/help/cs,
 /usr/share/help/ko, /usr/share/help/ru, /usr/share/help/th,
 /usr/share/help/zh_CN
=> Please fix. Propably: %{_datadir}/%{name}/help/

[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/appdata(filesystem)
=> Remove folder from %files, maybe be more concrete about subfolder(s)
   and contained files.

[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
=> You use a lesser Release number than previous packager.

[?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: glib-compile-schemas is run in %postun and %posttrans if package has
 *.gschema.xml files.
 Note: gschema file(s) in xviewer
[!]: The spec file handles locales properly.
=> See above for folders ownership.

[x]: 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.
=> See above for folders ownership.

[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]: update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package
 contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
 Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in xviewer
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
 contains icons.
 Note: icons in xviewer
[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 

[Bug 1356625] Review Request: python-cotyledon - Framework for defining long-running services

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356625

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1357114] Review Request: ceph-installer - An HTTP API for deployment of Ceph clusters

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357114



--- Comment #1 from tser...@redhat.com ---
This is my first package for Fedora, in case it wasn't clear :)

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

[Bug 1318988] Review Request: java-1.8.0-openjdk-aarch32 - OpenJDK AArch32 porting project preview release

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318988

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System  ---
java-1.8.0-openjdk-aarch32-1.8.0.91-1.160510.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora
24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in
this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-4cd7a4c3f8

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

[Bug 1357114] New: Review Request: ceph-installer - An HTTP API for deployment of Ceph clusters

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357114

Bug ID: 1357114
   Summary: Review Request: ceph-installer - An HTTP API for
deployment of Ceph clusters
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: tser...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://tserlin.github.io/ceph-installer.spec
SRPM URL: https://tserlin.github.io/ceph-installer-1.0.14-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Packaging ceph-installer for F24. François Cami (fcami) has agreed
to review and sponsor.
Fedora Account System Username: tserlin

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

[Bug 1356739] Review Request: zulucrypt - Qt GUI front end to cryptsetup

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356739



--- Comment #9 from gil cattaneo  ---
report this notice

/*
 * This routine is part of libc.  We include it nevertheless,
 * since the libc version has some security flaws.
 *
 * TODO: use canonicalize_file_name() when exist in glibc
 */
zuluCrypt-5.0.0/zuluCrypt-cli/lib/canonicalize/canonicalize.c


zuluCrypt-5.0.0/zuluCrypt-cli/lib/canonicalize/canonicalize.h

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

[Bug 1357110] Review Request: foma - Xerox-compatible finite-state compiler

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357110

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|anto.tra...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1356739] Review Request: zulucrypt - Qt GUI front end to cryptsetup

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356739



--- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo  ---
under public domain
zuluCrypt-5.0.0/zuluCrypt-gui/md5/md5.c
zuluCrypt-5.0.0/zuluCrypt-gui/md5/md5.h
from
http://openwall.info/wiki/people/solar/software/public-domain-source-code/md5

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

[Bug 1356739] Review Request: zulucrypt - Qt GUI front end to cryptsetup

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356739



--- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo  ---
 ..and also Comment#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 1356739] Review Request: zulucrypt - Qt GUI front end to cryptsetup

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356739



--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #5)
> > [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> Provides
> 
> zulucrypt:
> application()
> application(zuluCrypt.desktop)
> application(zuluMount.desktop)
> bundled(lxqt-wallet)
> bundled(md5-openssl)
> bundled(tcplay)
> zulucrypt
> zulucrypt(x86-32)
> 
> > [?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> > [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
> >  files.
> 
> I don't understand. What should I fix?

see Comment#3

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

[Bug 1353598] Review Request: hibernate4 - Relational persistence and query service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353598



--- Comment #7 from Jerry James  ---
Issues
==
- Multiple licensing issues must be explained with a comment in the spec file.
  For some ideas on how this might be done, see

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios

- The portions of the code with the Apache license have JBoss copyright
notices.
  Is this bundled code?

- There are some file copies without -p, for SOURCE1 through SOURCE10.  Perhaps
  -p should be added to preserve timestamps.

- Could you ask upstream to update lgpl.txt to a version with the correct FSF
  address?  Version 2.1 is available here:
  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt

Package Review
==

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

= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 368640 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

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

[Bug 1353598] Review Request: hibernate4 - Relational persistence and query service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353598



--- Comment #6 from Jerry James  ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #4)
> for now i should comment the execution of the PATCH1, before run a build,
> untill
> hibernate-commons-annotations will not upgraded to 5.0.1

Yes, the build fails otherwise.

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #5)
> see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/WildFly

Wow, that's quite the project.  I wish you the best of luck in moving this
forward.

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

[Bug 1354210] Review Request: xviewer - Fast and functional graphics viewer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354210

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|projects...@smart.ms
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #3 from Raphael Groner  ---
Taken. Thanks for the review swap. :)

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

[Bug 1357110] New: Review Request: foma - Xerox-compatible finite-state compiler

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357110

Bug ID: 1357110
   Summary: Review Request: foma -  Xerox-compatible finite-state
compiler
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: vpvai...@iki.fi
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://vpv.fedorapeople.org/packages/foma.spec
SRPM URL:
https://vpv.fedorapeople.org/packages/foma-0.9.18-0.1.git0fa48db.fc25.src.rpm

Description: Foma can be used for constructing finite-state automata and
transducers.
It has support for many natural language processing applications such as
producing morphological analyzers. It is sufficiently generic to use for
a large number of purposes in addition to NLP. The foma interface is
similar to the Xerox xfst interface.

Fedora Account System Username: vpv
Copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/vpv/Voikko-4.0/

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

[Bug 1356739] Review Request: zulucrypt - Qt GUI front end to cryptsetup

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356739



--- Comment #5 from Raphael Groner  ---
> [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.

What do you mean?

Provides

zulucrypt:
application()
application(zuluCrypt.desktop)
application(zuluMount.desktop)
bundled(lxqt-wallet)
bundled(md5-openssl)
bundled(tcplay)
zulucrypt
zulucrypt(x86-32)

> [?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
>  files.

I don't understand. What should I fix?

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

[Bug 1356592] Review Request: shibboleth-java-parent-v3 - Shibboleth Project V3 Super POM

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356592



--- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo  ---
thanks!

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

[Bug 1356592] Review Request: shibboleth-java-parent-v3 - Shibboleth Project V3 Super POM

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356592



--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/shibboleth-java-parent-v3

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

[Bug 1356657] Review Request: lxqt-wallet - Create a kwallet like functionality for LXQt

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356657



--- Comment #7 from Raphael Groner  ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #4)
> Please, remove:
> BuildRequires:  gcc-c++

Some people like to see gcc etc. explicitly listed, anyways fixed.

> and change
> 
> BuildRequires:  libsecret-devel
> 
> with
> 
> BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(libsecret-1)

Fixed.

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

[Bug 1356592] Review Request: shibboleth-java-parent-v3 - Shibboleth Project V3 Super POM

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356592



--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #4)
> [?]: Latest version is packaged.
> => Can not validate version 8, where do you get it from?
https://git.shibboleth.net/view/?p=java-parent-project-v3.git;a=summary
for now use this release until wildfly do not upgrade its deps

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

[Bug 1357064] Review Request: lumina-desktop - A lightweight, portable desktop environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357064



--- Comment #1 from Raphael Groner  ---
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/raphgro/review/build/386324/

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

[Bug 1356592] Review Request: shibboleth-java-parent-v3 - Shibboleth Project V3 Super POM

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356592



--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo  ---
Thanks for the review!

create new SCM requests:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/6444
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/6445

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

[Bug 1356592] Review Request: shibboleth-java-parent-v3 - Shibboleth Project V3 Super POM

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356592

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner  ---
APPROVED

Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
  Note: No javadoc subpackage present
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
=> Not available. Ignore.
- Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
  subpackage
  Note: No javadoc subpackage present. Note: Javadocs are optional for
  Fedora versions >= 21
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation


= 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: "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora-review/1356592
 -shibboleth-java-parent-v3/licensecheck.txt
=> OK: LICENSE file says ASL 2.0. 

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

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
 Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It
 is pulled in by maven-local

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

[Bug 1321473] Review Request: diodon - Clipboard manager for GNOME, Cinnamon and other Gtk desktops

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321473



--- Comment #17 from Mario Blättermann  ---
BTW, latest release is 1.5:
https://esite.ch/2016/04/small-bug-fix-release-diodon-1-5-0/

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

[Bug 1353598] Review Request: hibernate4 - Relational persistence and query service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353598



--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo  ---
see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/WildFly

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

[Bug 1353598] Review Request: hibernate4 - Relational persistence and query service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353598



--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #3)
> How is this related to the existing hibernate package?

the packet is for Wildfly 10+, which use both 4.x and 5.x series.
and this become a compat package for provides support for whose packets which
do not support the 5.x releases

for now i should comment the execution of the PATCH1, before run a build,
untill
hibernate-commons-annotations will not upgraded to 5.0.1

-- 
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 1353598] Review Request: hibernate4 - Relational persistence and query service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353598



--- Comment #3 from Jerry James  ---
How is this related to the existing hibernate package?

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

[Bug 1321473] Review Request: diodon - Clipboard manager for GNOME, Cinnamon and other Gtk desktops

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321473

Mario Blättermann  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #16 from Mario Blättermann  ---
Scratch build for f24:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14886183

$ rpmlint -i -v *
diodon.armv7hl: I: checking
diodon.armv7hl: I: checking-url https://esite.ch/tag/diodon (timeout 10
seconds)
diodon.i686: I: checking
diodon.i686: I: checking-url https://esite.ch/tag/diodon (timeout 10 seconds)
diodon.src: I: checking
diodon.src: I: checking-url https://esite.ch/tag/diodon (timeout 10 seconds)
diodon.src:97: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir}
There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros
are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and
escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.

diodon.src:97: W: macro-in-comment %{_libdir}
There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros
are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and
escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.

diodon.src:104: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It
should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.

diodon.src: I: checking-url
https://launchpad.net/diodon/trunk/1.4.0/+download/diodon-1.4.0.tar.gz (timeout
10 seconds)
diodon.x86_64: I: checking
diodon.x86_64: I: checking-url https://esite.ch/tag/diodon (timeout 10 seconds)
diodon-debuginfo.armv7hl: I: checking
diodon-debuginfo.armv7hl: I: checking-url https://esite.ch/tag/diodon (timeout
10 seconds)
diodon-debuginfo.armv7hl: E: debuginfo-without-sources
This debuginfo package appears to contain debug symbols but no source files.
This is often a sign of binaries being unexpectedly stripped too early during
the build, or being compiled without compiler debug flags (which again often
is a sign of distro's default compiler flags ignored which might have security
consequences), or other compiler flags which result in rpmbuild's debuginfo
extraction not working as expected.  Verify that the binaries are not
unexpectedly stripped and that the intended compiler flags are used.

diodon-debuginfo.i686: I: checking
diodon-debuginfo.i686: I: checking-url https://esite.ch/tag/diodon (timeout 10
seconds)
diodon-debuginfo.i686: E: debuginfo-without-sources
This debuginfo package appears to contain debug symbols but no source files.
This is often a sign of binaries being unexpectedly stripped too early during
the build, or being compiled without compiler debug flags (which again often
is a sign of distro's default compiler flags ignored which might have security
consequences), or other compiler flags which result in rpmbuild's debuginfo
extraction not working as expected.  Verify that the binaries are not
unexpectedly stripped and that the intended compiler flags are used.

diodon-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking
diodon-debuginfo.x86_64: I: checking-url https://esite.ch/tag/diodon (timeout
10 seconds)
diodon-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources
This debuginfo package appears to contain debug symbols but no source files.
This is often a sign of binaries being unexpectedly stripped too early during
the build, or being compiled without compiler debug flags (which again often
is a sign of distro's default compiler flags ignored which might have security
consequences), or other compiler flags which result in rpmbuild's debuginfo
extraction not working as expected.  Verify that the binaries are not
unexpectedly stripped and that the intended compiler flags are used.

diodon-devel.armv7hl: I: checking
diodon-devel.armv7hl: I: checking-url https://esite.ch/tag/diodon (timeout 10
seconds)
diodon-devel.armv7hl: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

diodon-devel.i686: I: checking
diodon-devel.i686: I: checking-url https://esite.ch/tag/diodon (timeout 10
seconds)
diodon-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

diodon-devel.x86_64: I: checking
diodon-devel.x86_64: I: checking-url https://esite.ch/tag/diodon (timeout 10
seconds)
diodon-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.

diodon-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

diodon.spec: I: checking
diodon.spec:97: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir}
There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros
are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case 

[Bug 1348160] Review Request: rubygem-em-proxy - EventMachine Proxy DSL

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #7 from Francesco Frassinelli (frafra)  ---
I would suggest to avoid env for Fedora packages for two reasons:

1. Fedora wiki suggests to use #!/usr/bin/ruby and #!/usr/bin/python
2. You don't want to get different behaviour/errors from your system tools when
you are in a virtualenv (or ruby equivalent)

I think that env is fine for upstream code and bad for system packages. There
are a lot of spec file replacing shebangs using env.

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

[Bug 1356907] Review Request: rust - The Rust Programming Language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356907



--- Comment #2 from Josh Stone  ---
FWIW, here's a scratch build trying an armv7hl bootstrap:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14908548

Even x86 took ~100min, so this might take a while.  Note also that arm is Tier
2 by upstream standards, so it's not as well tested as x86.  It should be build
ok, but we'll see whether it can pass the %check...

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

[Bug 1353343] Review Request: qmc2 - M.A.M.E. Catalog / Launcher II

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353343



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
qmc2-0.65-4.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e7ae28e131

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

[Bug 1354139] Review Request: nik4 - Command-line interface to a Mapnik rendering toolkit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354139



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
nik4-1.6.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-79d6d9b110

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

[Bug 1356118] Review Request: nodejs-yallist - Yet Another Linked List

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356118

Eduardo Mayorga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Eduardo Mayorga  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

= EXTRA items =

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.

[Bug 1356569] Review Request: php-robrichards-xmlseclibs - A PHP library for XML Security

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356569



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-robrichards-xmlseclibs-2.0.0-2.20160105git84313ca.el6 has been submitted as
an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-8a96a0e507

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 - EventMachine Proxy DSL

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #6 from Germano Massullo  ---
(In reply to Fabio Alessandro Locati from comment #5)
> @Germano: You _should_ probably rebase this package on 0.1.9

I know but I am waiting for Francesco Frassinelli comment about Ruby shebangs.
He claims to be pretty sure about
#!/usr/bin/ruby
usage

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

[Bug 1356048] Review Request: rtlsdr-scanner - Frequency scanning GUI for RTL2832 based DVB-T dongles

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356048



--- Comment #20 from Jaroslav Škarvada  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #19)
> (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #18)
> > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #17)
> > > (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #16)
> > > > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #15)
> > > > > (In reply to Jaroslav Škarvada from comment #12)
> > > > > > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #11)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Why it should provide its own license file? The docs are licensing 
> > > > > > under the
> > > > > > same license as the main package and it's dependent on the main 
> > > > > > package,
> > > > > > from the doc:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Both this document and the RLTSDR Scanner is licensed under the 
> > > > > > > GNU General
> > > > > > > Public License version 3 (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > According to [1]:
> > > > > > > If a subpackage is dependent (either implicitly or explicitly) 
> > > > > > > upon a base
> > > > > > > package (where a base package is defined as a resulting binary 
> > > > > > > package from the
> > > > > > > same source RPM which contains the appropriate license texts as 
> > > > > > > %license),
> > > > > > > it is not necessary for that subpackage to also include those 
> > > > > > > license
> > > > > > > texts as %license.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Ah sorry, I didn't seen the dependency. But does it really need main 
> > > > > package?
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > %package doc
> > > > Summary: Documentation files for rtlsdr-scanner
> > > > Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
> > > > BuildArch: noarch
> > > > 
> > > > Requires is the explicit dependency, i.e. you cannot install the doc
> > > > subpackage without the main package.
> > > 
> > > Yes, I understand but why? :)
> > 
> > Sorry, are you joking or what?
> 
> -doc sub-package provides a PDF file only, it does not need base package.
> 
> Just for example:
> 
> 'gle-doc' (that contains PDFs and license) does not depend by 'gle'
> 
> $ repoquery -l gle-doc
> /usr/share/doc/gle-doc
> /usr/share/doc/gle-doc/GLEusersguide.pdf
> /usr/share/doc/gle-doc/gle-manual.pdf
> /usr/share/licenses/gle-doc
> /usr/share/licenses/gle-doc/LICENSE.txt
> 
> $ repoquery --requires gle-doc
> #No output

Well, sorry I cannot imagine situation when you would need doc sub package and
not the main package, according to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines [1]:

> Subpackages are often extensions for their base package and in that
> case they should require their base package.

It's talking about extension of the package, not extension of the
functionality, so the documentation counts.

And from the Package Review Guidelines [2]:

> SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
> using a fully versioned dependency

I would recommend you reading the guidelines.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines

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

[Bug 1356569] Review Request: php-robrichards-xmlseclibs - A PHP library for XML Security

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356569



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-robrichards-xmlseclibs-2.0.0-2.20160105git84313ca.fc24 has been submitted
as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-7eb7fe9247

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

[Bug 1343661] Rebase clufter component

[bugzilla]

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

errata-xmlrpc  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



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

[Bug 1356569] Review Request: php-robrichards-xmlseclibs - A PHP library for XML Security

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356569



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-robrichards-xmlseclibs-2.0.0-2.20160105git84313ca.el7 has been submitted as
an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-4eaeb87c86

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

[Bug 1356569] Review Request: php-robrichards-xmlseclibs - A PHP library for XML Security

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356569

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1356569] Review Request: php-robrichards-xmlseclibs - A PHP library for XML Security

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356569



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-robrichards-xmlseclibs-2.0.0-2.20160105git84313ca.fc23 has been submitted
as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a1dde1399d

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

[Bug 1346060] Review Request: python-pintail-asciidoc - Use AsciiDoc pages in Pintail sites

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346060



--- Comment #1 from Tummala Dhanvi (c0mrad3)  ---
I am not sure if the above links will be up all the time so I am updating them
with my fedorapeople links

Spec URL :
https://dhanvi.fedorapeople.org/packages/pintail-asciidoc/pintail-asciidoc.spec

SRPM URL :
https://dhanvi.fedorapeople.org/packages/pintail-asciidoc/python-pintail-asciidoc-0.0.20160527git97c5e94-1.fc24.src.rpm
 

Description: Use AsciiDoc pages in Pintail sites

Fedora Account System Username: dhanvi

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

[Bug 1349075] Review Request: cxsc - C++ library for Extended Scientific Computing

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo  ---
Created attachment 1180222
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1180222=edit
licensecheck.txt

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

[Bug 1349075] Review Request: cxsc - C++ library for Extended Scientific Computing

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo  ---
Issues (non blocking):

- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
 Please, remove BuildRequires:  gcc-c++

[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or
 generated". 64 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/gil/1349075-cxsc/licensecheck.txt

cxsc.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/cxsc/COPYING



Please, report "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)" to upstream

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

[Bug 1356584] Review Request: php-robrichards-xmlseclibs1 - A PHP library for XML Security (version 1)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356584



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-robrichards-xmlseclibs1-1.4.1-2.20160518git2e20c8d.fc23 has been submitted
as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-7018873b57

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

[Bug 1356584] Review Request: php-robrichards-xmlseclibs1 - A PHP library for XML Security (version 1)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356584



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-robrichards-xmlseclibs1-1.4.1-2.20160518git2e20c8d.el6 has been submitted
as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-a09a1e88d1

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

[Bug 1356584] Review Request: php-robrichards-xmlseclibs1 - A PHP library for XML Security (version 1)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356584



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-robrichards-xmlseclibs1-1.4.1-2.20160518git2e20c8d.fc24 has been submitted
as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d62dbe2474

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

[Bug 1356584] Review Request: php-robrichards-xmlseclibs1 - A PHP library for XML Security (version 1)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356584



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-robrichards-xmlseclibs1-1.4.1-2.20160518git2e20c8d.el7 has been submitted
as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-6a6e50e9bf

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

[Bug 1356584] Review Request: php-robrichards-xmlseclibs1 - A PHP library for XML Security (version 1)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356584

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1349075] Review Request: cxsc - C++ library for Extended Scientific Computing

[bugzilla]

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

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
 Please, remove BuildRequires:  gcc-c++

= 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]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or
 generated". 64 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/gil/1349075-cxsc/licensecheck.txt

   Please, report "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)" to upstream

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 14 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1343977] Review Request: asciidoctor-mallard - A Project Mallard converter for AsciiDoc

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343977



--- Comment #2 from Tummala Dhanvi (c0mrad3)  ---
The Spec URL is now not showing a 404, just to be sure I have added them else
where 


Spec URL :
https://dhanvi.fedorapeople.org/packages/asciidoctor-mallard/asciidoctor-mallard.spec
 

SRPM URL :
https://dhanvi.fedorapeople.org/packages/asciidoctor-mallard/rubygem-asciidoctor-mallard-0.1.0.dev-1.fc24.src.rpm
 

Description: An extension for Asciidoctor that converts AsciiDoc documents to
Mallard 1.0

Fedora Account System Username: dhanvi

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

[Bug 812758] Review Request: trader - Star Traders, a simple game of interstellar trading

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812758

Ben Rosser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rosser@gmail.com



--- Comment #27 from Ben Rosser  ---
Are you still interested in this review?

For the record, including a .desktop file is a MUST item on the review
guidelines (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines), so I
think you should include one even if it's not yet translated.

Including AppData is a SHOULD according to the packaging guidelines
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData). Personally I would include
one even if it's not yet translated and then add the translations in a later
update.

Anyway, I'd be happy to finish this up: I cannot sponsor you, but I can at
least approve this package, at which point you can apply for a sponsor via
https://fedorahosted.org/packager-sponsors/.

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

[Bug 1343661] Rebase clufter component

[bugzilla]

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

Jan Pokorný  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |MODIFIED
   Fixed In Version|clufter-0.57.0-1.el7|clufter-0.58.0-1.el7



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

[Bug 1353598] Review Request: hibernate4 - Relational persistence and query service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353598

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||loganje...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from Jerry James  ---
I will take this 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 1354118] Review Request: protoparser - Java parser for .proto schema declarations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354118



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
protoparser-3.1.5-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c1e1198466

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

[Bug 1256392] Review Request: kf5-ktnef - The KTNEF Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256392

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||928937 (qt-reviews)
 CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu



--- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner  ---
*** Bug 1339767 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928937
[Bug 928937] Qt-related package review tracker
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1354118] Review Request: protoparser - Java parser for .proto schema declarations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354118

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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