[Bug 1268758] Review Request: rubygem-rubocop - Automatic Ruby code style checking tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268758

Jakub Jedelsky  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ilya.grad...@gmail.com
  Flags||needinfo?(ilya.gradina@gmai
   ||l.com)



--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jedelsky  ---
The newer version (0.42.0) of Rubocop is available, please, provide new spec
and srpm files.

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

[Bug 1372358] Review Request: java-packaging-howto - Fedora Java packaging HowTo

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372358

Mikolaj Izdebski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Mikolaj Izdebski  ---
Why provide hardcoded version 4.7.0-7? Why not %{version}-%{release}?
Other than this minor nuisance, everything looks good. Approved.


Package Review
==

Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem

[x] rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
build produces.  The output should be posted in the review.

[x] The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.

[x] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.

[x] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.

[x] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines.

[x] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.

[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 must be included in %doc.

[x] The spec file must be written in American English.

[x] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.

[x] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL.  Reviewers should use
sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once
imported into git.  If no upstream URL can be specified for this
package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with
this.

[x] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture.

[x] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the
spec in ExcludeArch.  Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST
have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the
package does not compile/build/work on that architecture.  The bug
number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding
ExcludeArch line.

[x] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
Apply common sense.

[x] The spec file MUST handle locales properly.  This is done by using
the %find_lang macro.  Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.

[x] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.

[x] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.

[x] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the
rationalization for relocation of that specific package.  Without
this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.

[x] A package must own all directories that it creates.  If it does
not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a
package which does create that directory.

[x] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.  (Notable exception: license texts in
specific situations.)

[x] Permissions on files must be set properly.  Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example.

[x] Each package must consistently use macros.

[x] The package must contain code, or permissible content.

[x] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.  (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement,
but is not restricted to size.  Large can refer to either size or
quantity).

[x] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.  To summarize: If it is in %doc, the
program must run properly if it is not present.

[x] Static libraries must be in a -static package.

[x] Development files must be in a -devel package.

[x] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires:
%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

[x] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.

[x] Packages containing GUI applications must include a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed
with desktop-file-install in the %install section.  If you feel
that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file,
you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.

[x] Packages must not own files or directories already 

[Bug 1334611] Review Request: python-cvss - CVSS2/ 3 library with interactive calculator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334611



--- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-cvss-1.4-1.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-2016-6e60fde431

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

[Bug 1368606] Review Request: astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts - Script retro style fonts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1368606



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts-1.000-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7
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-2016-2f950cb0a0

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

[Bug 1334611] Review Request: python-cvss - CVSS2/ 3 library with interactive calculator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334611



--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-cvss-1.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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-c54f8c59da

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

[Bug 1370473] Review Request: python-fauxquests - Mock HTTP requests sent with the requests package

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370473



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-fauxquests-1.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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-2016-776c0680da

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

[Bug 1368611] Review Request: typetype-molot-fonts - Display sans-serif fonts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1368611



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
typetype-molot-fonts-1.000-4.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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-ab0b9fbe60

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

[Bug 1079064] Review Request: btbuilder - Role-playing game construction set in the style of the Bard' s Tale Construction Set

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079064



--- Comment #36 from Ben Rosser  ---
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 COPYING is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

- Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
  is arched.
  Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 452556800 bytes in /usr/share
  btbuilder-0.5.11-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm:452556800

I suggest making a noarch btbuilder-data subpackage that btbuilder depends on
for all (or most, anyway) of the noarch data. If you do this you should
probably also put the %license COPYING in the data package, because that way if
a user _just_ installs btbuilder-data for whatever reason they still get the
license file. (this is because "License file installed when any subpackage
combination is installed." is considered a MUST item). This will resolve both
issues.

= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 54 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in
 /home/bjr/Programming/fedora/reviews/1079064-btbuilder/licensecheck.txt

(This is okay, but see comment under "Issues").

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners:
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor

(Not sure why ownership isn't picked up properly here).

[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
 contains icons.
 Note: icons in btbuilder
[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 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[-]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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 

[Bug 1364777] Review Request: fifechan - C++ GUI library designed for games

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364777



--- Comment #7 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
Any news here?

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

[Bug 1113328] Review Request: python-ioflo - Flow Based Programming Automated Reasoning Engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113328



--- Comment #18 from Sergio Pascual  ---
As per

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews

a response is needed in one week or the review will be closed

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

[Bug 1113310] Review Request: python-libnacl - Python ctypes wrapper for libsodium

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113310



--- Comment #32 from Sergio Pascual  ---
As per

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews

a response is needed in one week or the review will be closed

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

[Bug 1359402] Review Request: coot - crystallographic macromolecular building toolkit (unretire request )

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402



--- Comment #2 from Tim Fenn  ---
Sorry, corrupted link.  Updated.

SRPM URL: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxOz1eBnQT3nbW5Kb0RhdW1YOVU

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

[Bug 1333928] Review Request: python-searchlightclient - OpenStack Indexing and Search API Client Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333928



--- Comment #3 from Haïkel Guémar  ---
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/amoralej/python-searchlightclient/master/python-searchlightclient.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/amoralej/python-searchlightclient/raw/master/python-searchlightclient-0.2.1-1.fc25.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1359402] Review Request: coot - crystallographic macromolecular building toolkit (unretire request )

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359402



--- Comment #1 from Tim Fenn  ---
Updated spec/SRPM (for 0.8.6.1 version of the package):

Spec URL: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxOz1eBnQT3najl1NDBoVkc2ZUk
SRPM URL: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxOz1eBnQT3nTVVJLUxPSUlPZjg

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

[Bug 1329340] Review Request: python-cradox - Python libraries for the Ceph librados library with use cython instead of ctypes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329340

Haïkel Guémar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #8 from Haïkel Guémar  ---
Approved

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[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.

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". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/haikel/1329340-python-
 cradox/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1360365] Review Request: python-pytest-mock - Thin-wrapper around the mock package for easier use with py.test

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360365



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pytest-mock-1.1-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-e6b9375ced

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

[Bug 1368606] Review Request: astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts - Script retro style fonts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1368606



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts-1.000-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25
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-2016-5ba48a

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

[Bug 1370874] Review Request: gap-pkg-automata - Finite automata algorithms

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370874

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
gap-pkg-automata-1.13-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2016-5827571429

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

[Bug 1366635] Review Request: python3-simpletal - An XML based template processor for TAL, TALES and METAL specifications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366635



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-simpletal-5.2-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-c980871bcf

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

[Bug 1371635] Review Request: adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts - A set of OpenType fonts designed to complement Source Sans Pro

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371635



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts-1.017-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25
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-2016-982902f909

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

[Bug 1334611] Review Request: python-cvss - CVSS2/ 3 library with interactive calculator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334611



--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-cvss-1.4-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2016-5fbedde163

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

[Bug 1370868] Review Request: wildfly-arquillian - The Wildfly Arquillian Adaptor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370868

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
wildfly-arquillian-1.0.2-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2016-2ed5685e9b

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

[Bug 1368611] Review Request: typetype-molot-fonts - Display sans-serif fonts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1368611



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
typetype-molot-fonts-1.000-4.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-baf7b45e07

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

[Bug 1370948] Review Request: libmfx - Intel hardware video acceleration dispatcher library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370948



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
libmfx-1.16-1.20160317git7adf2e4.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2016-159bfca983

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

[Bug 1370473] Review Request: python-fauxquests - Mock HTTP requests sent with the requests package

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370473



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-fauxquests-1.1-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2016-5c1b94d9c3

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

[Bug 1370128] Review Request: mingw-mediawriter - Fedora Media Writer for Windows

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370128

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
mingw-mediawriter-0-1.1git19b13a8.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-f07b20c277

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

[Bug 1368606] Review Request: astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts - Script retro style fonts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1368606



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts-1.000-3.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-bb36767af1

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

[Bug 1334611] Review Request: python-cvss - CVSS2/ 3 library with interactive calculator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334611



--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-cvss-1.4-1.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-2016-88e934c10e

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

[Bug 1366635] Review Request: python3-simpletal - An XML based template processor for TAL, TALES and METAL specifications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366635



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-simpletal-5.2-1.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-2016-3ac481b243

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

[Bug 1368611] Review Request: typetype-molot-fonts - Display sans-serif fonts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1368611



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
typetype-molot-fonts-1.000-4.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-2016-3921b56471

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

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
  Flags||rdo-review+
Last Closed||2016-09-01 16:06:39



--- Comment #5 from Haïkel Guémar  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
 (v2.0)". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/haikel/1228106-openstack-neutron-vpnaas/1228118
 -openstack-neutron-fwaas/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/neutron, /etc/neutron,
 /usr/share/neutron/l3_agent
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/neutron,
 /etc/neutron, /usr/share/neutron/l3_agent
[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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane 

[Bug 1336552] Review Request: exodusii - Library to store and retrieve transient finite element data

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336552



--- Comment #3 from Christoph Junghans  ---
(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #2)
> Issues:
> ===
> - Dist tag is NOT present.
Done
> - Release should start at '1'.
Done
> - Please justify your strange naming convention
Following Debian and OpenSuse! There was an exodus v1 and this is exodus v2,
hence exodusII 
> - Is there any point in having the Fortran library in a separate package? Its
>   dependencies are identical to the C library except it also depends on the C
>   library.
Combined
> - %defattr(-,root,root,-) is already the default, please drop it
Done
> - SONAMEs for the libraries are unversioned, which is dangerous to the
> consumers
Added a patch from OpenSue to fix that.

> - license texts are not included as %license (exodus/COPYRIGHT and
>   nemesis/COPYRIGHT)
Done
> - License: tag should be just BSD
Done
> - the READMEs are also worth including as %doc
Done
> - the paper about Exodus and the manual are also worth including, maybe in a
>   separate -doc subpackage:
>   http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/1992/922137.pdf
>   http://endo.sandia.gov/SEACAS/Documentation/exodusII.pdf
I could do that
> - CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX, CMAKE_C_FLAGS_RELEASE, CMAKE_CXX_FLAGS_RELEASE
>   are already set by %cmake macro, please drop them.
Done
> - you don't need to set CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE
Done
> - Group: tag is invalid. Please either drop it (it's optional) or use a valid
>   group name
Done
> - No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in exodusii-devel
Done
> - %changelog is empty. The first entry should be something like "initial
>   package".
Done
> - Upstream seems to be here: https://github.com/gsjaardema/seacas#exodus
>   and no versions are listed. Why are you packaging source tarball from
> gentoo
>   distfiles instead of upstream snapshot? Please correct the URL tag, too.
seacas has a different API and the link to the tarball on the github page
actaully not pointing to exodus, but back to seacas.
> - There's a testsuite (make check), but it requires /bin/csh to be present
>   to run. Please add it to BR and add a %check section. You may need to set
>   LD_LIBRARY_PATH accordingly. Also, 
Done
> = MUST items =
> [!]: 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.
Done
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>  Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>  found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 35 files have unknown
>  license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
>  /home/rathann/build/review/1336552-exodusii/licensecheck.txt
DOne
> [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Done
> [!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
Done
> [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
>  Note: %defattr present but not needed
Done
> [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Done ?
> [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
>  Provides are present.
N/A
> [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Done

> = SHOULD items =
> [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
>  Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
>  libexoIIv2c , libexoIIv2for , exodusii-devel , exodusii-debuginfo
Done
> [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Done

New SPRM URL:
https://github.com/junghans/fedora-review/raw/master/exodusii/exodusii-6.02-1.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 1366635] Review Request: python3-simpletal - An XML based template processor for TAL, TALES and METAL specifications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366635

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-simpletal-5.2-1.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-2016-485f60f683

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

[Bug 1368606] Review Request: astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts - Script retro style fonts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1368606

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts-1.000-3.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-2016-8b432f332a

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

[Bug 1360365] Review Request: python-pytest-mock - Thin-wrapper around the mock package for easier use with py.test

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360365

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pytest-mock-1.1-3.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-2016-2018bc3322

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

[Bug 1371635] Review Request: adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts - A set of OpenType fonts designed to complement Source Sans Pro

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371635

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts-1.017-2.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-2016-0aa7a43b4b

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

[Bug 1368611] Review Request: typetype-molot-fonts - Display sans-serif fonts

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1368611

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
typetype-molot-fonts-1.000-4.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-2016-4bb5b0a8f2

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

[Bug 1370948] Review Request: libmfx - Intel hardware video acceleration dispatcher library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370948

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
libmfx-1.16-1.20160317git7adf2e4.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-2016-54f5cde109

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

[Bug 1334611] Review Request: python-cvss - CVSS2/ 3 library with interactive calculator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334611

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-cvss-1.4-1.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-2016-7f00da57d6

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

[Bug 1370473] Review Request: python-fauxquests - Mock HTTP requests sent with the requests package

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370473

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-fauxquests-1.1-1.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-e6f141ca60

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

 CC||mario.blaetterm...@gmail.co
   ||m
 Whiteboard||AwaitingSubmitter
  Flags||needinfo?(mario.blaetterman
   ||n...@gmail.com)



--- Comment #12 from Raphael Groner  ---
Friendly reminder. Are you still interested in this 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 1202064] Review Request: knock - A port-knocking server/client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202064

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Whiteboard||AwaitingSubmitter



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

[Bug 1202064] Review Request: knock - A port-knocking server/client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202064

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(christos.triantaf
   ||ylli...@gmail.com)



--- Comment #18 from Raphael Groner  ---
Friendly reminder. Are you still interested in this 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 1344294] Review Request: warsow-data - Game data for Warsow

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344294

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||walter.p...@yandex.com
 Whiteboard|Trivial |Trivial AwaitingSubmitter
  Flags||needinfo?(walter.pete@yande
   ||x.com)



--- Comment #9 from Raphael Groner  ---
Friendly reminder. Are you still interested in this 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 1366843] Review Request: openhft-chronicle-queue - Java library for persisted low latency messaging

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366843



--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo  ---
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15465032

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

[Bug 1309794] Review Request: qtscrob - Qt last.fm submitter for portable music devices

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309794

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Whiteboard||AwaitingSubmitter
  Flags||needinfo?(ignatenko@redhat.
   ||com)



--- Comment #10 from Raphael Groner  ---
Friendly reminder. Please build a 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 1366839] Review Request: openhft-affinity - Java Thread Affinity library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366839



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
openhft-affinity-3.0.6-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-cf544dace8

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

[Bug 1366839] Review Request: openhft-affinity - Java Thread Affinity library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366839

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 1366713] Review Request: nunit2 - unit-testing framework for .Net/ mono

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366713

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1354599



--- Comment #16 from Raphael Groner  ---
Please be also aware about bug #1354599.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354599
[Bug 1354599] RFE activate the tests during the package build
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
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 #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-cotyledon-1.2.7-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-5f2dbfa334

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

[Bug 1358956] Review Request: sstp-client - Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol(SSTP) Client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358956

Marcin Zajaczkowski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-09-01 15:08:00



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

[Bug 1279093] Review Request: smartirc4net - C# IRC library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279093
Bug 1279093 depends on bug 1336837, which changed state.

Bug 1336837 Summary: Review Request: starksoft-aspen - Security and 
cryptography library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336837

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|RELEASE_PENDING |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



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

[Bug 1336837] Review Request: starksoft-aspen - Security and cryptography library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336837

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|RELEASE_PENDING |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-09-01 15:13:11



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

[Bug 1159091] Review Request: openra - Libre/ Free Real Time Strategy project [+Tracker to unbundle all dependencies]

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1159091
Bug 1159091 depends on bug 1279087, which changed state.

Bug 1279087 Summary: Review Request: sharpfont - Cross-platform FreeType 
bindings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279087

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|RELEASE_PENDING |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



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

[Bug 1279087] Review Request: sharpfont - Cross-platform FreeType bindings

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279087

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|RELEASE_PENDING |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-09-01 15:12:36



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

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 1358215] Review Request: direnv - shell environment variable manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358215

Dusty Mabe  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #14 from Dusty Mabe  ---
ok good deal. passing 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 1356625] Review Request: python-cotyledon - Framework for defining long-running services

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-cotyledon-1.2.7-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-fdc0c52216

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



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
mozilla-lightbeam-1.3.1-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1372454] New: Review Request: bwrap-oci - run OCI containers with bubblewrap

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372454

Bug ID: 1372454
   Summary: Review Request: bwrap-oci - run OCI containers with
bubblewrap
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: gscri...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://github.com/projectatomic/bwrap-oci/blob/master/bwrap-oci.spec

SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/gscrivano/bwrap-oci/fedora-24-x86_64/00447875-bwrap-oci/bwrap-oci-0.1.1-3.fc24.src.rpm

Description: run an OCI container through bubblewrap.

Fedora Account System Username: gscrivano

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

[Bug 1372429] Review Request: openjdk-orb - A downstream fork of OpenJDK' s ORB impl

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372429

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1181081




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181081
[Bug 1181081] wildfly: Upgrade to 10.1.0.Final
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1369067] Review Request: libgepub - Library for epub documents

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369067



--- Comment #5 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
* Missing BuildRequires: gcc
* Add --disable-silent-rules to %configure

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

[Bug 1369067] Review Request: libgepub - Library for epub documents

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369067



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

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

[Bug 1372429] Review Request: openjdk-orb - A downstream fork of OpenJDK' s ORB impl

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372429

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 1372429] New: Review Request: openjdk-orb - A downstream fork of OpenJDK's ORB impl

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372429

Bug ID: 1372429
   Summary: Review Request: openjdk-orb - A downstream fork of
OpenJDK's ORB impl
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: punto...@libero.it
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/openjdk-orb.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/openjdk-orb-8.0.7-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: JBoss repackaging of the OpenJDK ORB.
Fedora Account System Username: gil

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15464009

Wildfly 10+ dependency

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

[Bug 1358956] Review Request: sstp-client - Secure Socket Tunneling Protocol(SSTP) Client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358956



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
sstp-client-1.0.10-5.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1369558] Review Request: python-smartcols - Python bindings for util-linux libsmartcols-library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369558



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-smartcols-0.1.1-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1264546] Review Request: soletta - A framework for making IoT devices

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546

Gustavo Lima Chaves  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

URL||https://github.com/solettap
   ||roject/soletta/



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

[Bug 1264546] Review Request: soletta - A framework for making IoT devices

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546



--- Comment #66 from Gustavo Lima Chaves  ---
Thanks a lot, Paulo!

I'll do the alias file reference, sorry for that (rpmlint failed me on that, I
think :/).

As for Changelogs, can I simply edit the ones I got, removing non-RPM packaging
relevant stuff (with no new changelog entries on the spec)?

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

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Alan Pevec  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ape...@redhat.com,
   ||l...@lukos.org
  Flags|needinfo?(karlthered@gmail. |needinfo?(l...@lukos.org)
   |com)|
   |needinfo?(karlthered@gmail. |
   |com)|



-- 
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 1264546] Review Request: soletta - A framework for making IoT devices

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546



--- Comment #65 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/soletta

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

[Bug 1264546] Review Request: soletta - A framework for making IoT devices

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546



--- Comment #64 from Paulo Andrade  
---
Gustavo,

Welcome as a Fedora packager!

Please see remaining information at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner

I will be your sponsor. If you have any issues,
please send me an email, or for more urgent issues
you can also ping me in freenode, nickname pcpa.

I will do some extra duties as sponsor, like watching
you bugzilla interactions, but that is just for the
bureaucracy part :)

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

[Bug 1264546] Review Request: soletta - A framework for making IoT devices

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546

Paulo Andrade  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #63 from Paulo Andrade  
---
1. Please add an owner to the directory /usr/share/soletta/flow/aliases

2. I suggest creating a ChangeLog file, and installing it
under /usr/share/doc/soletta-devel. The rpm spec %changelog
is not development changelog :)
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
specifically:
"""
The intent is to give the user a hint as to what changed in a package update
without overwhelming them with the technical details.
"""
It is not a blocking issue, just that it is not the right place
for development changelog.
Most times a changelog file can be created on the fly with
"git shortlog", but you may prefer to have a more well
formatted one.

  Please consider the comments above for a minor update before
the final build.

  I consider the 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 1372403] Review Request: cereal - A header-only C++11 serialization library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372403



--- Comment #3 from Christoph Junghans  ---
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #1)
> > BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-build
> not needed
Done

> 
> > %global debug_package %{nil}
> BuildArch: noarch
Was already there!

> 
> > Group:  Development/Libraries/C and C++
> not needed
Done
> 
> > License:BSD-3-Clause
> License: BSD
Done
> 
> > sed -i 's/-Werror//' CMakeLists.txt
> bad idea, better to fix real errors ;)
was report https://github.com/USCiLab/cereal/pull/337
Putting -Werror in by default is very bad. Nobody knows what warning future
compilers will warn about!

> 
> > %doc LICENSE
> %license LICENSE
Done

> 
> > %{_includedir}/cereal
> %{_includedir}/%{name}/
Done

> 
> > %{_datadir}/cmake/cereal
> %dir %{_datadir}/cmake
> %{_datadir}/cmake/%{name}/
Done
> 
> > cd %{_target_platform}
> pushd %{_target_platform}
Done

> 
> > make %{?_smp_mflags}
> %make_build -C %{_target_platform}
Done

> 
> > make -C %{_target_platform} install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
> %make_install -C %{_target_platform}
Done

(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #2)
> > Summary:Development headers and libraries for cereal library
> Summary: Development files for %{name}
Done

> 
> > #test_portable_binary_archive is broken
> it's better to also include link to upstream bugreport.
Already reported https://github.com/USCiLab/cereal/issues/338

New SRPM URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/junghans/fedora-review/master/cereal/cereal-1.2.1-1.fc24.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1259486] Review Request: libglvnd - The GL Vendor-Neutral Dispatch library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259486



--- Comment #11 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
libglvnd.x86_64: W: self-obsoletion xorg-x11-glvnd < 0.1.0 obsoletes
xorg-x11-glvnd = 0.0.0-8

This looks wrong. I guess that the goal is for this package to be a replacement
for xorg-x11-glvnd. Following
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages,
this should look like:

Provides: xorg-x11-glvnd = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes: xorg-x11-glvnd < 0.1.0


The pkg-config file looks bogus: Libs line is empty, Version is wrong. You
might want to bug upstream about that.


%license does not need LGPLv2, afaict. The %license tag applies to the binary
rpm, and the parts under GPL are build system components, irrelevant to the
licensing of the binary rpm
[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#Does_the_License:_tag_cover_the_SRPM_or_the_binary_RPM.3F].

Looks good otherwise.

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

[Bug 1353224] Review Request: python-tackerclient - Client for OpenStack tacker project

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353224



--- Comment #3 from Javier Peña  ---
I've realized the spec requires python-oslo-utils >= 3.14.0, which is not yet
available in Rawhide.

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

[Bug 1372415] New: Review Request: python-ryu - component-based Software-defined Networking Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372415

Bug ID: 1372415
   Summary: Review Request: python-ryu - component-based
Software-defined Networking Framework
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: abreg...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/abregman/bregman-rpms/downloads/python-ryu.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bitbucket.org/abregman/bregman-rpms/downloads/python-ryu-4.3-3.fc23.src.rpm

Description: Ryu provides software components with well defined API that make
it easy for developers to create new network management and control
applications.
It is also used by neutron when choosing native ovs since Liberty release.

Fedora Account System Username: abregman

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

[Bug 1353224] Review Request: python-tackerclient - Client for OpenStack tacker project

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353224

Javier Peña  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jp...@redhat.com



--- Comment #2 from Javier Peña  ---
The package looks good to me. The only nit is that the first Summary tag reads
"OpenStack Example client".

Also, it should be updated to the last upstream version when building.

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

[Bug 1369067] Review Request: libgepub - Library for epub documents

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369067

Debarshi Ray  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Debarshi Ray  ---
(In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #2)
> Thanks. upstream has now a 0.4 release out together with a tarball.
> 
> Spec URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/libgepub.spec
> SRPM URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/libgepub-0.4-1.fc24.src.rpm

Thanks, Kalev.

ACCEPTED

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

[Bug 1372403] Review Request: cereal - A header-only C++11 serialization library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372403



--- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
> Summary:Development headers and libraries for cereal library
Summary: Development files for %{name}

> #test_portable_binary_archive is broken
it's better to also include link to upstream bugreport.

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

[Bug 1369067] Review Request: libgepub - Library for epub documents

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369067

Kalev Lember  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(klem...@redhat.co |
   |m)  |



--- Comment #2 from Kalev Lember  ---
Thanks. upstream has now a 0.4 release out together with a tarball.

Spec URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/libgepub.spec
SRPM URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/libgepub-0.4-1.fc24.src.rpm

* Thu Sep 01 2016 Kalev Lember  - 0.4-1
- Update to 0.4

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

[Bug 1372403] Review Request: cereal - A header-only C++11 serialization library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372403

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: cereal -|Review Request: cereal - A
   |header-only C++11   |header-only C++11
   |serialization library   |serialization library



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

[Bug 1372403] Review Request: cereal - header-only C++11 serialization library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372403

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ignate...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
> BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-build
not needed

> %global debug_package %{nil}
BuildArch: noarch

> Group:  Development/Libraries/C and C++
not needed

> License:BSD-3-Clause
License: BSD

> sed -i 's/-Werror//' CMakeLists.txt
bad idea, better to fix real errors ;)

> %doc LICENSE
%license LICENSE

> %{_includedir}/cereal
%{_includedir}/%{name}/

> %{_datadir}/cmake/cereal
%dir %{_datadir}/cmake
%{_datadir}/cmake/%{name}/

> cd %{_target_platform}
pushd %{_target_platform}

> make %{?_smp_mflags}
%make_build -C %{_target_platform}

> make -C %{_target_platform} install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
%make_install -C %{_target_platform}

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

[Bug 1372345] Review Request: python-piexif - Pure Python library to simplify exif manipulations with python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372345



--- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
(In reply to José Matos from comment #2)
> (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #1)
> > I will review it today/tomorrow.
> 
> Thank you. :-)
> 
> > Initial comments:
> > 
> > > BuildRequires:  python-setuptools
> > BuildRequires:  python2-setuptools
> 
> Right, I used pyp2rpm to generate the first version and this detail was lost
> in the revision. I will fix it in the next revision.
> 
> > > %{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}
> > %{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}/
> 
> Why do we need the trailing slash?
distutils creates file .egg-info, but setuptools creates directory .egg-info.
As you have BR: setuptools it's better to be sure that it's used ;)
> 
> IIRC in %files
> 
> mydir
> 
> is the same as
> 
> %dir mydir
> mydir/*
> 
> I admit that my memory could be failing. :-)
> 
> > > %{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info
> > %{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-*.egg-info/
> > or
> > %{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py%{python2_version}.egg-info/
> > (note trailing slash)
> > 
> > .. same for python3
> 
> I will change to the * version or else it will fail at python 3.10. :-)
No, it will not ;) it's not regex, it's glob. * takes any numbers of any
characters.
> 
> > * I think it has missing Requires: pythonX-pillow
> 
> No it does not. I looked into the code, it mainly imports struct and io that
> are in the standard library.
> 
> It is supposed to work with pillow and thus the tests but it does not
> require it.
Ah, okay.
> 
> > * Don't duplicate %description, define it just once
> 
> I saw a tip from you recently but I forgot it. How do you suggest to have a
> single description?
%global _description \
foo\
bar.
%description %{_description}
%description -n python2-%{modname} %{_description}

Python 2 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 1372403] New: Review Request: cereal - header-only C++11 serialization library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372403

Bug ID: 1372403
   Summary: Review Request: cereal - header-only C++11
serialization library
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jungh...@votca.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/junghans/fedora-review/master/cereal/cereal.spec
SRPM URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/junghans/fedora-review/master/cereal/cereal-1.2.1-0.src.rpm
Description: cereal is a header-only C++11 serialization library. cereal takes
arbitrary data types and reversibly turns them into different representations,
such as compact binary encodings, XML, or JSON. cereal was designed to be fast,
light-weight, and easy to extend - it has no external dependencies and can be
easily bundled with other code or used standalone.

Fedora Account System Username: junghans

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

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635



--- Comment #4 from Javier Peña  ---
Hi Marcos,

Sorry for the delayed review. I have some comments about the spec:

- We have not started creating Python3 subpackages for services yet. If
Congress is Python3-compatible, I think it's ok to keep the python3 subpkg in
the spec file, but it's not going to be built on CentOS.
- The main package (openstack-congress) should require python-congress,
otherwise we'll have to install both manually.
- Please move the python-* requires from the main package to the
python2-congress subpackage.
- Some packages (python-oslo-config, python-glanceclient, python-novaclient,
python-keystoneclient) have an Epoch, please add it to the version requirement.
- You're missing the %post, %preun and %postun sections for the services. You
can use
https://github.com/openstack-packages/openstack-example-spec/blob/master/openstack-example.spec#L147-L154
as an example.
- You can use %py2_build, %py2_install and their py3 equivalents instead of a
longer command line.

Also, I guess the spec will have to be updated for the Newton release of
Congress.

Thanks!

-- 
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 1372345] Review Request: python-piexif - Pure Python library to simplify exif manipulations with python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372345



--- Comment #2 from José Matos  ---
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #1)
> I will review it today/tomorrow.

Thank you. :-)

> Initial comments:
> 
> > BuildRequires:  python-setuptools
> BuildRequires:  python2-setuptools

Right, I used pyp2rpm to generate the first version and this detail was lost in
the revision. I will fix it in the next revision.

> > %{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}
> %{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}/

Why do we need the trailing slash?

IIRC in %files

mydir

is the same as

%dir mydir
mydir/*

I admit that my memory could be failing. :-)

> > %{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info
> %{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-*.egg-info/
> or
> %{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py%{python2_version}.egg-info/
> (note trailing slash)
> 
> .. same for python3

I will change to the * version or else it will fail at python 3.10. :-)

> * I think it has missing Requires: pythonX-pillow

No it does not. I looked into the code, it mainly imports struct and io that
are in the standard library.

It is supposed to work with pillow and thus the tests but it does not require
it.

> * I would not put tests out of tree, as if something changes on github you
> will not notice.
> * I would just build from git tag (and write comment that this commit is
> actually version X.Y.Z) - https://github.com/hMatoba/Piexif/issues/23

I was expecting to have the nice upstream to release a new version soon. We can
always hope.

> * Don't duplicate %description, define it just once

I saw a tip from you recently but I forgot it. How do you suggest to have a
single description?

> * Move BuildRequires under subpackages for better look

Fair request. :-)

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

[Bug 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

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
  Flags||rdo-review+
Last Closed||2016-09-01 11:18:29



--- Comment #6 from Haïkel Guémar  ---
Approved.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
 (v2.0)". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/haikel/1228106-openstack-neutron-vpnaas/1228115
 -openstack-neutron-lbaas/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /etc/neutron, /usr/share/neutron/rootwrap,
 /usr/share/neutron, /usr/share/neutron/server
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/neutron,
 /usr/share/neutron/rootwrap, /usr/share/neutron/server,
 /usr/lib/systemd/system, /etc/neutron, /usr/lib/systemd
[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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 

[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

  Flags|rdo-review? |rdo-review+



-- 
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

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
  Flags|needinfo?(ihrachys@redhat.c |
   |om) |
Last Closed||2016-09-01 11:13:47



--- Comment #9 from Haïkel Guémar  ---
Except minor point above, it's good, approved


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
 (v2.0)". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/haikel/1228106-openstack-neutron-
 vpnaas/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/neutron, /usr/share/neutron/server,
 /etc/neutron, /usr/share/neutron/l3_agent, /usr/share/neutron/rootwrap
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/neutron,
 /usr/share/neutron/rootwrap, /usr/share/neutron/server,
 /usr/lib/systemd/system, /etc/neutron, /usr/lib/systemd,
 /usr/share/neutron/l3_agent
[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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= 

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Javier Peña  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|karlthe...@gmail.com|jp...@redhat.com
 QA Contact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |jp...@redhat.com



-- 
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 1372358] Review Request: java-packaging-howto - Fedora Java packaging HowTo

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372358



--- Comment #1 from Michael Simacek  ---
Spec URL: https://msimacek.fedorapeople.org/java-packaging-howto.spec
SRPM URL:
https://msimacek.fedorapeople.org/java-packaging-howto-26.0.0-1.fc24.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1327635] Review Request: openstack-congress - OpenStack Congress Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327635

Javier Peña  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Target Release|--- |trunk
 CC||jp...@redhat.com
  Component|Package Review  |Package Review
Version|rawhide |trunk
Product|Fedora  |RDO
   Target Milestone|--- |GA



--- Comment #3 from Javier Peña  ---
I'm changing the product to RDO. We are not packaging services in Fedora
directly, but as part of the RDO project.

-- 
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

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||ihrac...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|karlthe...@gmail.com
  Flags||needinfo?(ihrachys@redhat.c
   ||om) rdo-review?



--- Comment #8 from Haïkel Guémar  ---
Missing Restart=on-failure in service otherwise good.

-- 
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 1353169] Review Request: python-nikola - A static website and blog generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353169



--- Comment #15 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
(In reply to José Matos from comment #14)
> (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #13)
> > I agree with Igor here. If this can't be used as a Python module, then it
> > shouldn't be packaged in such a manner.
> 
> My first reaction was, oh no we are not getting one more time in the
> argument of python modules versus python applications... :-)
> 
> In the defense of the python- prefix in the name we can consider that:
> 
> * nikola is available through pypi.python.org
> https://pypi.python.org/pypi/Nikola
All python crap is distributed there ;)
> 
> * the package consist mostly of a python module with a script on /usr/bin
> that is a wrapper that calls the nikola module:
> if __name__ == '__main__':
> sys.exit(
> load_entry_point('Nikola==7.7.12', 'console_scripts', 'nikola')()
> )
Actually question if there is documentation which says import nikola. If it
doesn't it's better to name it nikola and ship only py3 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 1370291] Review Request: python-tenacity - Tenacity is a general purpose retrying python library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370291



--- Comment #3 from Javier Peña  ---
Also, it would be nice to unify the descriptions, some of them seem to have
been cut.

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

[Bug 1372345] Review Request: python-piexif - Pure Python library to simplify exif manipulations with python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372345

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
I will review it today/tomorrow.

Initial comments:

> BuildRequires:  python-setuptools
BuildRequires:  python2-setuptools

> %{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}
%{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}/

> %{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info
%{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-*.egg-info/
or
%{python2_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py%{python2_version}.egg-info/
(note trailing slash)

.. same for python3

* I think it has missing Requires: pythonX-pillow
* I would not put tests out of tree, as if something changes on github you will
not notice.
* I would just build from git tag (and write comment that this commit is
actually version X.Y.Z) - https://github.com/hMatoba/Piexif/issues/23
* Don't duplicate %description, define it just once
* Move BuildRequires under subpackages for better look

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

[Bug 1370291] Review Request: python-tenacity - Tenacity is a general purpose retrying python library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370291

Javier Peña  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 from Javier Peña  ---
Hi Pradeep,

The spec looks fine, but we need at least one change:

- Please remove python3-futures from the requirements list for the python3
subpackage, futures is Python2-only

fedora-review is also complaining about
https://pypi.io/packages/source/t/tenacity-3.0.0.tar.gz not being a valid URL,
have you checked it?

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 1372289] Review Request: python-cursive - OpenStack-specific validation of digital signatures

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372289

Javier Peña  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-09-01 10:36:03



--- Comment #3 from Javier Peña  ---
Package successfully built for rawhide ->
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=796161

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

[Bug 1329838] Review Request: ghc-uglymemo - A simple (but internally ugly ) memoization function

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329838



--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/ghc-uglymemo

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