[Bug 1385441] Review Request: rpmdeplint - Tool to find errors in RPM packages in the context of their dependency graph

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385441

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1383488] Review Request: php-asm89-stack-cors - Cross-origin resource sharing library and stack middleware

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1383488

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Remi Collet  ---
[~]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
missing php-spl (from the generated autoloader)
not a blocker as always there


This package complies to the Packaging Guidelines.


=== 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1383488] Review Request: php-asm89-stack-cors - Cross-origin resource sharing library and stack middleware

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1383488

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||fed...@famillecollet.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.com



--- Comment #1 from Remi Collet  ---
Created attachment 1211229
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1211229=edit
phpci.log

phpCompatInfo version 5.0.1 DB version 1.14.0 built Oct 15 2016 18:25:18 CEST
static analyze results

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1383488] Review Request: php-asm89-stack-cors - Cross-origin resource sharing library and stack middleware

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1383488



--- Comment #2 from Remi Collet  ---
Created attachment 1211230
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1211230=edit
review.txt

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1383488
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1383487] Review Request: php-akamai-open-edgegrid-auth - Implements the Akamai {OPEN} EdgeGrid Authentication

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1383487

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Remi Collet  ---
No blocker, so this package complies to the Packaging Guidelines.


=== 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1383487] Review Request: php-akamai-open-edgegrid-auth - Implements the Akamai {OPEN} EdgeGrid Authentication

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1383487



--- Comment #2 from Remi Collet  ---
Created attachment 1211228
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1211228=edit
review.txt

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1383487
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1383487] Review Request: php-akamai-open-edgegrid-auth - Implements the Akamai {OPEN} EdgeGrid Authentication

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1383487

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||fed...@famillecollet.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.com



--- Comment #1 from Remi Collet  ---
Created attachment 1211227
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1211227=edit
phpci.log

phpCompatInfo version 5.0.1 DB version 1.14.0 built Oct 15 2016  18:25:18 CEST
static analyze results

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1205872] Review Request: python-padme - Mostly transparent proxy class for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1205872

Zygmunt Krynicki  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(m...@zygoon.pl) |



--- Comment #6 from Zygmunt Krynicki  ---
Hi.

I'd like to refresh this bug report and put the relevant source files somewhere
reachable. I'll try to put them on fedora people and update this bug to reflect
that.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1385441] New: Review Request: rpmdeplint - Tool to find errors in RPM packages in the context of their dependency graph

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385441

Bug ID: 1385441
   Summary: Review Request: rpmdeplint - Tool to find errors in
RPM packages in the context of their dependency graph
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: dcall...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/rpmdeplint/rpmdeplint.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/rpmdeplint/rpmdeplint-1.2-1.fc26.src.rpm
Description: Rpmdeplint is a tool to find errors in RPM packages in the context
of their dependency graph.
Fedora Account System Username: dcallagh

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366355] Review Request: acme-tiny - Tiny auditable ACME script for Let's Encrypt

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366355



--- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System  ---
acme-tiny-0.1-10.20160810git5a7b4e7.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370871] Review Request: diff-match-patch - Robust algorithms to perform the operations for synchronizing plain text

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370871

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1130071
 CC||amigad...@amigadave.com



--- Comment #1 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
*** Bug 1379778 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1130071
[Bug 1130071] translate-toolkit-2.0.0b6 is available
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1379778] Review Request: python-diff-match-patch - Algorithms for synchronizing plain text

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379778

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Last Closed||2016-10-16 15:03:45



--- Comment #6 from Igor Gnatenko  ---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1370871 ***

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1382810] Review Request: cinnamon-applet-globalappmenu - Ubuntu AppMenu support for Cinnamon Desktop

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382810
Bug 1382810 depends on bug 1382811, which changed state.

Bug 1382811 Summary: Un-Retirement Review: appmenu-qt5 - Support for global 
DBus-exported application menu in Qt5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382811

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1382811] Un-Retirement Review: appmenu-qt5 - Support for global DBus-exported application menu in Qt5

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382811

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-10-16 14:52:04



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
appmenu-qt5-0.3.0+16.10.20160628.1-1.fc25,
cinnamon-applet-globalappmenu-0.6-1.git20160913.5b55d2d.fc25,
unity-gtk-module-0.0.0+16.10.20160913-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366355] Review Request: acme-tiny - Tiny auditable ACME script for Let's Encrypt

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366355

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-10-16 14:52:16



--- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System  ---
acme-tiny-0.1-10.20160810git5a7b4e7.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1382810] Review Request: cinnamon-applet-globalappmenu - Ubuntu AppMenu support for Cinnamon Desktop

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382810
Bug 1382810 depends on bug 1382813, which changed state.

Bug 1382813 Summary: Review Request: unity-gtk-module - GTK+ module for 
exporting old-style menus as GMenuModels
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382813

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1382810] Review Request: cinnamon-applet-globalappmenu - Ubuntu AppMenu support for Cinnamon Desktop

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382810

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-10-16 14:52:08



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
appmenu-qt5-0.3.0+16.10.20160628.1-1.fc25,
cinnamon-applet-globalappmenu-0.6-1.git20160913.5b55d2d.fc25,
unity-gtk-module-0.0.0+16.10.20160913-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1382813] Review Request: unity-gtk-module - GTK+ module for exporting old-style menus as GMenuModels

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382813

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-10-16 14:52:00



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
appmenu-qt5-0.3.0+16.10.20160628.1-1.fc25,
cinnamon-applet-globalappmenu-0.6-1.git20160913.5b55d2d.fc25,
unity-gtk-module-0.0.0+16.10.20160913-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1379778] Review Request: python-diff-match-patch - Algorithms for synchronizing plain text

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379778

Julien Enselme  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Julien Enselme  ---
Looks good. 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1379778] Review Request: python-diff-match-patch - Algorithms for synchronizing plain text

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379778



--- Comment #4 from David King  ---
(In reply to Julien Enselme from comment #3)
> They are. I now get this:
> 
> python3-diff-match-patch.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C The Diff
> Match and Patch libraries offer robust algorithms to perform thenoperations
> required for synchronizing plain text.
> 
> It seems in you new spec file, the desc line contains '\n' instead of a true
> line break. Can you fix that? After that, the package should be good.
> 
> BTW, the closing parenthesis is missing in your changelog entry.

Thanks! Both should now be fixed.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1297281] Review Request: endless-sky - Space exploration, trading, and combat game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297281



--- Comment #16 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
(In reply to Link Dupont from comment #15)
> Oh yea. I did a review of flyingsaucersattack on 1303349. Looks like there's
> a follow-up for me. I'll track down a couple others.

OK, great.

> I do have my full name in FAS. Is it not showing up?

Doesn't seem to be. There's no "Full name" entry, only "Account name" and
"Email" fields.

zodbot also doesn't show anything:
16:14  User: linkdupont, Name: None, email: l...@sub-pop.net, Creation:
2015-01-01, IRC Nick: None, 
   Timezone: None, Locale: None, GPG key ID: None, Status: active
16:14  Approved Groups: fedorabugs cla_done cla_fpca

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1385180] Review Request: purple-facebook - Facebook protocol plugin for purple2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385180

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #2)
> > %{__rm} → rm
> > There's absolutely no need to do this. The guidelines require macros for
> > *directories*, but not for executables. If you have a rogue rm in the path,
> > you have bigger problems, and anyway, there are various other programs
> > called during build, so guarding just rm isn't useful. Same for %__make.
> 
> I think this is more a personal preference of mine and doesn't violate
> packaging guidelines.

Yeah, it's just gratuitous obfuscation ;)

OK, the version thing was the only bigger issue. That is fixed now. Package is
APPROVED.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1379778] Review Request: python-diff-match-patch - Algorithms for synchronizing plain text

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379778



--- Comment #3 from Julien Enselme  ---
> the errors and remarks should be fixed.

They are. I now get this:

python3-diff-match-patch.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C The Diff Match
and Patch libraries offer robust algorithms to perform thenoperations required
for synchronizing plain text.

It seems in you new spec file, the desc line contains '\n' instead of a true
line break. Can you fix that? After that, the package should be good.

BTW, the closing parenthesis is missing in your changelog entry.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1379778] Review Request: python-diff-match-patch - Algorithms for synchronizing plain text

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379778



--- Comment #2 from David King  ---
(In reply to Julien Enselme from comment #1)
> Issues:
> - I have rpmlint errors about non-executable-script for
> diff_match_patch/diff_match_patch.py and
> diff_match_patch/diff_match_patch_test.py. Can you remove the sheband on
> those files, it is not needed.
> 
> Non blocking remarks:
> - The definition of the %sum macro is not needed. Just put the text in the
> main Summary and use %{summary}. You can define a %desc macro for the
> description though.

Thanks for the comments! I updated the .spec and .srpm in place, and the errors
and remarks should be fixed.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1365839] Review Request: python-django-notifications-hq - GitHub notifications alike app for Django

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365839

Julien Enselme  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||juj...@jujens.eu
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|juj...@jujens.eu
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Julien Enselme  ---
- From what I see in setup.py and LICENSE file, the license is BSD, not MIT
- Requires are missing: please add them (see setup.py)
- Usage of the %{sum} macro is not needed. Define the first Summary normally
then use %{summary}
- Please add a %check section and launch tests in it
- Please update to 1.2


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /tmp/1365839-python-django-notifications-
 hq/licensecheck.txt
[X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[X]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[X]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[X]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[X]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 6 files.
[X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: 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: 

[Bug 1385180] Review Request: purple-facebook - Facebook protocol plugin for purple2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385180



--- Comment #2 from Björn "besser82" Esser  ---
Thank you for the quick review!  =)

***

Updated package:

Koji Build:

  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16099176


Urls:

  Spec URL:  https://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/purple-facebook.spec
  SRPM URL: 
https://besser82.fedorapeople.org/review/purple-facebook-0.0.0.20160409-0.2.git66ee773.fc26.src.rpm

***

(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1)
> into pidgin → for pidgin

fixed


> %{__rm} → rm
> There's absolutely no need to do this. The guidelines require macros for
> *directories*, but not for executables. If you have a rogue rm in the path,
> you have bigger problems, and anyway, there are various other programs
> called during build, so guarding just rm isn't useful. Same for %__make.

I think this is more a personal preference of mine and doesn't violate
packaging guidelines.


> - versioning doesn't follow the guidelines
> [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Pre-Release_packages
> has the rules, but it's rather muddled unfortunately]. I think keeping the
> git date in version makes sense, but the git tag should be moved to the
> release tag.

fixed

***

Hope the package is fine now and can be 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1132661] Review Request: atom - Atom editor from github

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1132661

jiri vanek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |NEW
 CC||jva...@redhat.com
 Resolution|NOTABUG |---



--- Comment #25 from jiri vanek  ---
Reseting to NEW so it appears in lists of opened 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1344840] Review Request: hot-babe - Graphical CPU utilization monitoring utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344840



--- Comment #5 from jiri vanek  ---
If there is willing reviewer:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385331

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1385331] New: Review Request: hot-tux - Graphical CPU utilization monitoring utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385331

Bug ID: 1385331
   Summary: Review Request: hot-tux - Graphical CPU utilization
monitoring utility
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jva...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/hot-tux/r1/hot-tux.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/hot-tux/r1/hot-tux-0.3.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Graphical CPU utilization monitoring utility
Fedora Account System Username: jvanek

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1344840] Review Request: hot-babe - Graphical CPU utilization monitoring utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344840



--- Comment #4 from jiri vanek  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #3)
> Maybe to patch this so the initial image is just... feathers-loosing tux,
> and other...skins... may be (out of repo) plugins?-)

https://github.com/judovana/hot-tux

happened

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1382935] Review Request: python-visitor - A tiny python visitor implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382935

Julien Enselme  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||juj...@jujens.eu
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|juj...@jujens.eu
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Julien Enselme  ---
Package looks good. Approved. Side note: if you choose to get the sources from
github, you'll be able to run tests on this package.


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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1382935
 -python-visitor/licensecheck.txt
[X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[X]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[X]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[X]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[X]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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 2 files.
[X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[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-visitor , python3-visitor
[?]: Package functions as described.
[X]: Latest version is packaged.
[X]: 

[Bug 1381087] Review Request: python-pandas-datareader - Data readers from the pandas codebase

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381087

Julien Enselme  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||juj...@jujens.eu
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|juj...@jujens.eu
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Julien Enselme  ---
- Please remove the 
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python-%{srcname}} line outside the python2
and python3 packages.
- The use of the %{sum} macro is not needed. Use %{summary} instead.
- In the %files section, I think it is easier to know the files that are
packaged by being a little more specific, eg %{python3_sitelib}/* ->
%{python3_sitelib}/pandas_datareader/ and
%{python3_sitelib}/pandas_datareader-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info/
- Please launch tests in the %check section
- Requires are not valid. Package requires pandas, requests and requests-file.
BR for requests and requests-file are not needed until you launch the tests.

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (3 clause)", "*No copyright* BSD", "Unknown or generated".
 30 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /tmp/1381087-python-pandas-datareader/licensecheck.txt
[X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[X]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[X]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[X]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[X]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[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 

[Bug 1379778] Review Request: python-diff-match-patch - Algorithms for synchronizing plain text

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379778



--- Comment #1 from Julien Enselme  ---
Issues:
- I have rpmlint errors about non-executable-script for
diff_match_patch/diff_match_patch.py and
diff_match_patch/diff_match_patch_test.py. Can you remove the sheband on those
files, it is not needed.

Non blocking remarks:
- The definition of the %sum macro is not needed. Just put the text in the main
Summary and use %{summary}. You can define a %desc macro for the description
though.


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". 6 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1379778-python-diff-
 match-patch/licensecheck.txt
[X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[X]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[X]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[X]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[X]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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 2 files.
[X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[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
 -diff-match-patch , python3-diff-match-patch
[?]: Package functions as described.
[X]: Latest version is packaged.
[X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains

[Bug 1379778] Review Request: python-diff-match-patch - Algorithms for synchronizing plain text

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379778

Julien Enselme  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||juj...@jujens.eu
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|juj...@jujens.eu
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370533] Review Request: python-django-pgjson - PostgreSQL json field support for Django

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370533

Julien Enselme  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||juj...@jujens.eu



--- Comment #2 from Julien Enselme  ---
From what I see, the review of this package is happening at #1375222. Shouldn't
this bug 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1342688] Review Request: python-livereload - Command line utility for starting a server in a directory

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342688



--- Comment #1 from Julien Enselme  ---
Some remarks

- Build fails in mock due to "No matching package to install:
'python2-backports.ssl_match_hostname'". From what I see here:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=782160 the correct name of
the package currently is python-backports.ssl_match_hostname. Once this is
fixed I'll continue the review.
- In the description of the SRMP should "Python3 LiveReload" simply be "Python
LiveReload"?
- Executable are not named with -py2 nor -py3 any more but with
-%{python3_version} (executable), -3 (symlink) and unversionned. Likewise for
python2. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Executables_in_.2Fusr.2Fbin

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1342688] Review Request: python-livereload - Command line utility for starting a server in a directory

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342688

Julien Enselme  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||juj...@jujens.eu
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|juj...@jujens.eu
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

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

[bugzilla]

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

Julien Enselme  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #2 from Julien Enselme  ---
Some remarks before the review:

- Please add the COPYING file with the %license macro.
- From what I understand from the python guidelines,
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python) the RPM must be named
python3-pintail-asciidoc (the SRPM can still be named python-pintail-asciidoc)
and use the %python_provide macro to be future ready.
- The tests are failing in mock with "ImportError: No module named
'pintail.site'" I guess you are missing a BR.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

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

[bugzilla]

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

Julien Enselme  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||juj...@jujens.eu
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|juj...@jujens.eu
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1197517] Review Request: elmon - Performance monitoring tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197517

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #11 from Raphael Groner  ---
APPROVED. No blockers found.

Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: gcc
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
=> Ignore.
- Are you sure with GPLv3 only? Why not use GPLv3+? The plus sign stands
  for "or any later version". I fail to find any note that prevents that.
 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#GPL_Compatibility_Matrix
- The %make_build macro is available mostly but not recommended. Maybe
  use 'make %{?_smp_mflags}' instead that works in all distributions.


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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: "*No copyright* GPL (v3)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder
 /fedora-review/1197517-elmon/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.
[-]: 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]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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