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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #5 from Josh Stone  ---
Even if it doesn't really cover *all* x86?  We only have a bootstrap compiler
for i686 in particular.  Although i586 is another known target at the moment,
upstream only builds std for it, and it's not even listed in the support tiers
at all.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-robrichards-xmlseclibs-2.0.0-2.20160105git84313ca.el6 has been pushed to
the Fedora EPEL 6 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-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 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 #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-robrichards-xmlseclibs1-1.4.1-2.20160518git2e20c8d.el6 has been pushed to
the Fedora EPEL 6 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-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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-robrichards-xmlseclibs1-1.4.1-2.20160518git2e20c8d.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-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 1356596] Review Request: ldaptive - LDAP library for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356596

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
ldaptive-1.1.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ee3fb47b3c

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
protoparser-3.1.5-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-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 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|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-robrichards-xmlseclibs-2.0.0-2.20160105git84313ca.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-2016-7eb7fe9247

-- 
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 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|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
shibboleth-java-parent-v3-8-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5f9fda5b2f

-- 
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 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|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
cxsc-2.5.4-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-73a734e090

-- 
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 1356499] Review Request: PEGTL - Parsing Expression Grammar Template Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356499

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
PEGTL-1.3.1-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-cf11737d4c

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

[Bug 1270322] Review Request: chromium - A WebKit (Blink) powered web browser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270322

Kevin Kofler  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Alias||chromium



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

[Bug 1177494] Review Request: paper-gtk-theme - Paper GTK Theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177494

Eduardo Mayorga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||echevemas...@gmail.com,
   ||e...@mayorgalinux.com
  Flags||needinfo?(echevemaster@gmai
   ||l.com)



--- Comment #6 from Eduardo Mayorga  ---
Any update? If there is no response you, Eduardo, within one week, I'll close
this bug as per
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews.

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

[Bug 1353988] Review Request: nodejs-optjs - Probably the sole command line option parser you' ll ever need

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353988

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 text not included in the source package. Please ask upstream to
include it.


= 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.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1357204] Review Request: jmockit - Java toolkit for unit/ integration testing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357204



--- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo  ---
Complete list othe JDK files under GPLv2 with exceptions license:
./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/AgentInitializationException.java
./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/AgentLoadException.java
./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/AttachNotSupportedException.java
./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/AttachPermission.java
./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/VirtualMachine.java
./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/VirtualMachineDescriptor.java
./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/spi/AttachProvider.java
./main/src/sun/tools/attach/BsdVirtualMachine.java
./main/src/sun/tools/attach/HotSpotVirtualMachine.java
./main/src/sun/tools/attach/LinuxVirtualMachine.java
./main/src/sun/tools/attach/SolarisVirtualMachine.java
./main/src/sun/tools/attach/WindowsVirtualMachine.java

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

[Bug 1357204] Review Request: jmockit - Java toolkit for unit/ integration testing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357204



--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo  ---
Created attachment 1180493
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1180493=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 1357204] Review Request: jmockit - Java toolkit for unit/ integration testing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357204



--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo  ---
Issues:

[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL (v2)", "Unknown or
 generated". 630 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/gil/1357204-jmockit/licensecheck.txt

   BSD: ./main/src/mockit/external/asm/*

   GPLv2 with exceptions:
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/AgentInitializationException.java
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/AgentLoadException.java
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/AttachNotSupportedException.java
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/AttachPermission.java
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/VirtualMachine.java
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/VirtualMachineDescriptor.java
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/spi/AttachProvider.java
  ./main/src/sun/tools/attach/BsdVirtualMachine.java
  ./main/src/sun/tools/attach/HotSpotVirtualMachine.java
  ./main/src/sun/tools/attach/LinuxVirtualMachine.java
  ./main/src/sun/tools/attach/SolarisVirtualMachine.java
  ./main/src/sun/tools/attach/WindowsVirtualMachine.java



[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.

See Comment#1

These files are part of objectweb-asm package:
  ./main/src/mockit/external/asm/*
These files are part of JDK:
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/AgentInitializationException.java
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/AgentLoadException.java
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/AttachNotSupportedException.java
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/AttachPermission.java
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/VirtualMachine.java
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/VirtualMachineDescriptor.java
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/spi/AttachProvider.java
  ./main/src/sun/tools/attach/HotSpotVirtualMachine.java
  ./main/src/sun/tools/attach/LinuxVirtualMachine.java

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

[Bug 1357204] Review Request: jmockit - Java toolkit for unit/ integration testing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357204



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

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL (v2)", "Unknown or
 generated". 630 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/gil/1357204-jmockit/licensecheck.txt

   BSD: ./main/src/mockit/external/asm/*

   GPLv2 with exceptions:
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/AgentInitializationException.java
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/AgentLoadException.java
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/AttachNotSupportedException.java
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/AttachPermission.java
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/VirtualMachine.java
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/VirtualMachineDescriptor.java
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/spi/AttachProvider.java
  ./main/src/sun/tools/attach/BsdVirtualMachine.java
  ./main/src/sun/tools/attach/HotSpotVirtualMachine.java
  ./main/src/sun/tools/attach/LinuxVirtualMachine.java
  ./main/src/sun/tools/attach/SolarisVirtualMachine.java
  ./main/src/sun/tools/attach/WindowsVirtualMachine.java


[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.

These files are part of objectweb-asm package:
  ./main/src/mockit/external/asm/*
These files are part of JDK:
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/AgentInitializationException.java
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/AgentLoadException.java
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/AttachNotSupportedException.java
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/AttachPermission.java
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/VirtualMachine.java
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/VirtualMachineDescriptor.java
  ./main/src/com/sun/tools/attach/spi/AttachProvider.java
  ./main/src/sun/tools/attach/HotSpotVirtualMachine.java
  ./main/src/sun/tools/attach/LinuxVirtualMachine.java

[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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 

[Bug 1357204] Review Request: jmockit - Java toolkit for unit/ integration testing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357204



--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #2)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #1)
> > you must add: Provides:  bundled(objectweb-asm) = 5.0.3 
> > maybe 5.0.3 is not the correct asm release but for me is not a problem
> 
> Can we unbundle? I based on your spec file. ;)

as you want :)

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

[Bug 1357204] Review Request: jmockit - Java toolkit for unit/ integration testing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357204



--- Comment #2 from Raphael Groner  ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #1)
> you must add: Provides:  bundled(objectweb-asm) = 5.0.3 
> maybe 5.0.3 is not the correct asm release but for me is not a problem

Can we unbundle? I based on your spec file. ;)

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

[Bug 1357204] Review Request: jmockit - Java toolkit for unit/ integration testing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357204



--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo  ---
you must add: Provides:  bundled(objectweb-asm) = 5.0.3 
maybe 5.0.3 is not the correct asm release but for me is not a problem

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

[Bug 1356597] Review Request: opensaml-java - APIs to work with SAML messages as Java bean objects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356597

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner  ---
Review is going to happen in the next days.

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

[Bug 1357204] Review Request: jmockit - Java toolkit for unit/ integration testing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357204

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||punto...@libero.it
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it
  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1356597] Review Request: opensaml-java - APIs to work with SAML messages as Java bean objects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356597



--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #2)
> Review swap with bug #1357204?

sure, 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 1082825] Review Request: mozilla-lightbeam - An add-on for visualizing HTTP requests between websites in real time

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082825

Ben Rosser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #4 from Ben Rosser  ---
I'm happy to review this, any chance you could take
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350260 in return?

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

[Bug 1356597] Review Request: opensaml-java - APIs to work with SAML messages as Java bean objects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356597



--- Comment #2 from Raphael Groner  ---
Review swap with bug #1357204?

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

[Bug 1357204] Review Request: jmockit - Java toolkit for unit/ integration testing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357204

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG)
  Alias||jmockit




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 1357204] New: Review Request: jmockit - Java toolkit for unit/ integration testing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357204

Bug ID: 1357204
   Summary: Review Request: jmockit - Java toolkit for
unit/integration testing
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: projects...@smart.ms
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/java/testing/jmockit.spec
SRPM URL:
https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/java/testing/jmockit-1.19-1.20150623git3203901.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Java toolkit for unit/integration testing
JMockit is a Java toolkit for developer (unit/integration) testing.
It contains mocking APIs and other tools, supporting both JUnit and
TestNG. The mocking APIs allow all kinds of Java code, without testability
restrictions, to be tested in isolation from selected dependencies.

Fedora Account System Username: raphgro

Test builds:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/raphgro/review/build/388898/

Note: Version 1.19 is the newest version I managed to build in Fedora 24
because of all the changing dependencies. For instance, latest version (1.26)
needs JUnit5 what's not yet released nor packaged.

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



--- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros

- Please, move following lines under %install section

sed -i '/^prefix/c\prefix = %{buildroot}%{_prefix}' foma/Makefile
sed -i '/^libdir/c\libdir = %{buildroot}%{_libdir}' foma/Makefile

- License file is installed by base package only.
  'foma' and 'libfoma-devel' require 'libfoma', 'COPYING' and 'README' files
  can be provided by 'libfoma' only.

- Libraries and binary files are "No Full Relro"
  Binary files are "No PIE"

Please, fix compiler/linker flags according to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Harden_All_Packages

- Fix the 'unused-direct-shlib-dependency' warnings
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues?rd=PackageMaintainers/Common_Rpmlint_Issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency

= 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files
 have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/sagitter/1357110-foma/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[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 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 

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

[bugzilla]

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

Tummala Dhanvi (c0mrad3)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||dhanvi...@gmail.com



--- Comment #3 from Tummala Dhanvi (c0mrad3)  ---
(In reply to Eduardo Mayorga from comment #2)

> - 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
> 
Reported it here https://github.com/projectmallard/pintail/issues/17

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
in Exclusive arch replace i686 with %{ix86}

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 #11 from Raphael Groner  ---
Forwarding an e-mail I got from upstream:

Greetings from founder and current maintainer of zuluCrypt.

I usually google "zuluCrypt" to see what is out there and google led
me to your effort of packaging zuluCrypt for fedora here[1] and i have
a few comments that i think will get you in your effort.

1. It is currently not possible to use upstream version of tcplay with
zuluCrypt. Upstream seems to have lost interest in the project and i
have extended my "personal" copy of the library in incompatible ways.
For example,upstream version does not have this[2] pull request but my
copy has it.My copy extended this pull request to add unlocking
VeraCrypt volumes that uses a PIM value.A bunch of APIs like this[3]
one are also not in the upstream version. Upstream seems uninterested
in the project and i have not attempted to offer them upstream because
of it.

2. It should be possible to cleanly unbundle "lxqt_wallet" since
zuluCrypt only uses lxqt_wallet documented API.Will add a config
option shortly to build using an external version.

3. If you dont want to have zulu*-cli CLI components as suid-root
binaries(offers best user experience in my opinion),look at what
debian[4] is doing to have the second best user experience. With the
"debian way",a user clicks an icon and they get a polkit prompt to
root authenticate before they start the application with root's
privileges but they still wont be able to do everything since the user
that
invokes the application is remembered and the application will do only
what that user is allowed to do.This is done through pkexec[5].

I think this should be enought for now.

Thank you for packaging my project for fedora.

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


[2] https://github.com/bwalex/tc-play/pull/65


[3]
https://github.com/mhogomchungu/zuluCrypt/blob/6653c8d465470d862c18baee3287b0cb91158fe0/external_libraries/tc-play/tcplay_api.h#L57


[4] https://github.com/marciosouza20/zulucrypt


[5] https://github.com/marciosouza20/zulucrypt/blob/master/zuluCrypt-gui-pkexec

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

[Bug 1324784] Review Request: pseudo - Advanced tool for simulating superuser privileges

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324784



--- Comment #2 from Raphael Groner  ---
Are you interest in a review swap with bug #1346457?

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

[Bug 1324784] Review Request: pseudo - Advanced tool for simulating superuser privileges

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324784

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||projects...@smart.ms



--- Comment #1 from Raphael Groner  ---
Can you use the name pseudoroot for package and binary? I think pseudo is a too
generic name and pseudoroot would be in conjunction with fakeroot what does
similiar things. There's an alternative and some binary/script fakeroot-pseudo,
is it a plugin?

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

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jsyna...@redhat.com,
   ||kdu...@redhat.com



--- Comment #7 from Raphael Groner  ---
Trying to ask maintainers of python-pycurl what they think.

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



--- Comment #6 from Raphael Groner  ---
It would be great to have python3-tornado on EPEL7, especially for python-pika
and running the dedicated tests for its adapter.

(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #5)
> This is waiting on a python3-pycurl package.

python-pycurl is available in RHEL7 for python2. Either the Fedora maintainers
of python-pycurl can build python3-pycurl subpackage from it also for EPEL7, or
we need another new python3-pycurl package 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