[Bug 1375765] Review Request: yosys - Yosys Open SYnthesis Suite, including Verilog synthesizer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1375765

Eric Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(space...@gmail.co |
   |m)  |



--- Comment #5 from Eric Smith  ---
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/yosys/yosys.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/yosys/yosys-0.6.0-2.20160923git8f5bf6d.fc24.src.rpm

Note that no action was taken for the following:

* bundled viz.js  - The file viz.js isn't bundled into the generated RPMs, so
the bundling policy, which is based primarily on security concerns, is not
applicable. In particular, following the bundling policy would require a
"Provides: bundled(viz.js)=0.0.3", but that would clearly be wrong, as the
package doesn't provide it.
* /usr/share/yosys/python3/smtio.py - Not moved. There is considerable
precedent for application-specific Python files to be in /usr/share/%{name},
e.g., firewalld, hplip,  qtcreator, setroubleshoot, virt-manager, etc. I've
reviewed FHS 3.0 and am not convinced that having application-specific Python
files in /usr/share/%{name} actually contravenes any FHS 3.0 requirement.
* tarball without URL - No actual problem. Perhaps was triggered by outdated
URL for Debian pool.
* %check tests directory - No actual problem. Tests are present and are
correctly tested in %check section.

These requested changes have been made:

* license tag - Changed to include additional licenses.
* changelog format - Changed to include review bug number.
* /usr/bin/abc - Changed to use %{_bindir}.
* /usr/share/yosys/python3/smtio.p - Had previously marked executable to fix
rpmlint error. Removed the chmod, so now rpmlint reports that error. Which is
better, having the rpmlint error, or having the file unnecessarily marked as
executable? Since it contains no main program, I felt that having it marked
executable was inconsequential.
* source tag - Debian - URL updated. Note, Debian pool changes often, deletes
older versions of their patches. URL was correct when original review was
submitted.
* license texts - Requested upstream,
https://github.com/cliffordwolf/yosys/issues/263, comment added to files
section in spec.
* versioned dependency in subpackages:
 - Subpackage doc dependency on main package *removed*, as docs can stand
alone.
 - Subpackage devel dependency on main package made arch-specific.
* /usr/share/yosys is architecture-independent:
 - Moved /usr/share/yosys to noarch subpackage.
 - Main package made dependent on -share subpackage.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1392090] Review Request: pychromecast: Python library to communicate with the Google Chromecast.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392090



--- Comment #1 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
I am not sure if we can use this name for the package. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Outdated_Python_package_naming_conventions

Would you use the template on
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file?
It would really improve readability with all those macros set there.

As pointed in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Reviewer_checklist ,
%python_provide macro must be used.

are there any reasons for not including the README file under %doc?

Any comments on why you decided to use github instead of pypi for sources? I am
just curious since you used pypi for the other python 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1392090] Review Request: pychromecast: Python library to communicate with the Google Chromecast.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392090

Athos Ribeiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||athoscribe...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|athoscribe...@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 1392089] Review Request: python-zeroconf: Pure Python Multicast DNS Service Discovery Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392089



--- Comment #2 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
There are also some missing Requires:

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
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 #27 from Fedora Update System  ---
endless-sky-0.9.4-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3f9fed873a

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1391892] Review Request: python-vitrageclient - Python client for Virage REST API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391892

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-vitrageclient-1.0.1-4.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-2016-48d37a7abd

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 #26 from Fedora Update System  ---
endless-sky-0.9.4-1.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-2016-325897ba92

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1392089] Review Request: python-zeroconf: Pure Python Multicast DNS Service Discovery Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392089



--- Comment #1 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
Would you use the template on
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file?
It would really improve readability with all those macros set there.

As pointed in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Reviewer_checklist ,
%python_provide macro must be used.

Are there any reasons for not running upstream's test suite under %check?
I see there's one here
https://github.com/jstasiak/python-zeroconf/blob/master/test_zeroconf.py

Also, are there any reasons for not including the README file under %doc?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1392089] Review Request: python-zeroconf: Pure Python Multicast DNS Service Discovery Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392089

Athos Ribeiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||athoscribe...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|athoscribe...@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 1391598] Review Request: mkosi - Create legacy-free OS images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391598

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-11-04 19:56:43



--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Build and submitted.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1390156] Review Request: jsonassert - JUnit extension to write JSON unit tests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1390156



--- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo  ---
create new SCM request/s:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/8588
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/8589

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391950] Review Request: ocaml-ocamlbuild - Build tool for OCaml libraries and programs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391950

Richard W.M. Jones  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||ocaml-ocamlbuild-0.9.3-5.fc
   ||26
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-11-04 18:53:48



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1390156] Review Request: jsonassert - JUnit extension to write JSON unit tests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1390156

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rjo...@redhat.com



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

[Bug 1390156] Review Request: jsonassert - JUnit extension to write JSON unit tests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1390156



--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo  ---
Thanks for the review!

create new SCM request/s:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/8586
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/8587

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1390156] Review Request: jsonassert - JUnit extension to write JSON unit tests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1390156



--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo  ---
Please set the "Assigned To" field

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391950] Review Request: ocaml-ocamlbuild - Build tool for OCaml libraries and programs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391950



--- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/ocaml-ocamlbuild

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391950] Review Request: ocaml-ocamlbuild - Build tool for OCaml libraries and programs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391950



--- Comment #16 from Richard W.M. Jones  ---
Spec URL:
http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/ocaml-ocamlbuild/ocaml-ocamlbuild.spec
SRPM URL:
http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/ocaml-ocamlbuild/ocaml-ocamlbuild-0.9.3-5.fc25.src.rpm

That fixes everything, thanks for the approval.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1390156] Review Request: jsonassert - JUnit extension to write JSON unit tests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1390156

Richard W.M. Jones  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones  ---
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.

==> Packaged APPROVED by RWMJ.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1359402] Review Request: coot - crystallographic macromolecular building toolkit (unretire request )

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #13 from Antonio Trande  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/coot
  See:
 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names

- Add 'Requires: lib%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}' to libcoot-devel.

- Add 'Requires: python2-lib%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}' to
python2-libcoot-devel.

- 'coot-data' must be a noarch package.
  Main package requires 'coot-data' as a noarch dependence.

  Requires: %{name}-data = %{version}-%{release}

- 'coot-doc' is a stand-alone package that must provide a license file.

- Following lines can be removed

%post -n python2-libcoot
/sbin/ldconfig

%postun -n python2-libcoot
/sbin/ldconfig

- ldconfig scriptlets can be written in this way

%post -n libcoot -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -n libcoot -p /sbin/ldconfig

- Please, remove those macros in the comments or silence them with %%.

- Fix strange-permission warnings (set them with 644)

coot.src: W: strange-permission reference-structures.tar.gz 444
coot.src: W: strange-permission coot.in 755

= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL",
 "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated",
 "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)".
 513 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/sagitter/1359402-coot/licensecheck.txt
[!]: 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.
[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.
[!]: 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 coot
[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 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]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
 desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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 

[Bug 1391950] Review Request: ocaml-ocamlbuild - Build tool for OCaml libraries and programs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391950



--- Comment #15 from gil cattaneo  ---
Please use "install -pm 0644 man/ocamlbuild.1 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man1/"
for preserve file timestamp

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391950] Review Request: ocaml-ocamlbuild - Build tool for OCaml libraries and programs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391950

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #14 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #13)
> Spec URL:
> http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/ocaml-ocamlbuild/ocaml-ocamlbuild.spec
> SRPM URL:
> http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/ocaml-ocamlbuild/ocaml-ocamlbuild-0.9.3-4.
> fc25.src.rpm
> 
> This changes:
> 
>  - Packages up ocamlbuild(1) man page.
> 
>  - Also adds the Requires dependency to the -doc subpackage.
>This is not strictly needed because in theory you could install the
>doc package on its own, but it seems better to have the dependency.
>One important reason is so that uninstalling ocaml-ocamlbuild also
>uninstalls ocaml-ocamlbuild-doc.

Some problems "Connect to oirase.annexia.org (oirase.annexia.org) |
81.187.83.230 |: 80 ... failed: Network is unreachable."

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 1390156] Review Request: jsonassert - JUnit extension to write JSON unit tests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1390156

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #1)
> 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.
> There is an upstream bug about the licensing, so most files are
> "unknown".  However the main license file agrees with the package
> licensing.
> 
> [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", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 36
>  files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
>  /var/tmp/1390156-jsonassert/licensecheck.txt
> See above.

Open https://github.com/skyscreamer/JSONassert/issues/70 for this problem (and
also a PR), waiting upstream response ...

(In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #2)
> Everything looks fine except for:
> 
> [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
>  Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
>  jsonassert-javadoc
> 
> Could you check if this is a problem or not?  I have no idea.

This a "noarch" package. and use the _isa notation, in this case, that not make
sense

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391950] Review Request: ocaml-ocamlbuild - Build tool for OCaml libraries and programs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391950



--- Comment #13 from Richard W.M. Jones  ---
Spec URL:
http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/ocaml-ocamlbuild/ocaml-ocamlbuild.spec
SRPM URL:
http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/ocaml-ocamlbuild/ocaml-ocamlbuild-0.9.3-4.fc25.src.rpm

This changes:

 - Packages up ocamlbuild(1) man page.

 - Also adds the Requires dependency to the -doc subpackage.
   This is not strictly needed because in theory you could install the
   doc package on its own, but it seems better to have the dependency.
   One important reason is so that uninstalling ocaml-ocamlbuild also
   uninstalls ocaml-ocamlbuild-doc.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391950] Review Request: ocaml-ocamlbuild - Build tool for OCaml libraries and programs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391950



--- Comment #12 from Richard W.M. Jones  ---
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
 ocaml-ocamlbuild-debuginfo.i686: E: debuginfo-without-sources

I'd prefer to leave the debuginfo alone for now until we work
out why (across all OCaml builds) debuginfo doesn't include
source files.

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

[Bug 1391950] Review Request: ocaml-ocamlbuild - Build tool for OCaml libraries and programs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391950



--- Comment #11 from Richard W.M. Jones  ---
I should note that:

[?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/lib/ocaml/ocamlbuild(ocaml)

is expected, because ocamlbuild is currently part of ocaml.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1390156] Review Request: jsonassert - JUnit extension to write JSON unit tests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1390156

Richard W.M. Jones  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones  ---
Everything looks fine except for:

[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 jsonassert-javadoc

Could you check if this is a problem or not?  I have no idea.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276

Ken Dreyer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ktdre...@ktdreyer.com



--- Comment #4 from Ken Dreyer  ---
Would you please address each of Parag's comments above and update the package
to the latest upstream version?

I'm a sponsor, so I can sponsor you if you would please do one satisfactory
unofficial review of a package in Parag's links above, and ensure that this
package gets cleaned up.

For example, this sort of boilerplate seems common in the Gluster community and
is unneeded:

  %define name gdeploy
  %define version 2.1
  %define release 0

In fact it will break tools like rpmdev-bumpspec that Fedora rel-eng uses for
mass rebuilds. It's better to simply define the values directly in the RPM:

  Name:   gdeploy
  Version:2.1
  Release:1%{?dist}

The URL should be the upstream project, https://github.com/gluster/gdeploy, not
Red Hat's storage website.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1390156] Review Request: jsonassert - JUnit extension to write JSON unit tests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1390156



--- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones  ---
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.
There is an upstream bug about the licensing, so most files are
"unknown".  However the main license file agrees with the package
licensing.

[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", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 36
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /var/tmp/1390156-jsonassert/licensecheck.txt
See above.

[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.
Sources are all java files, so looks fine.

[-]: 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.
It's not a Java library but a "JUnit extension", and the name is the
same as upstream, so it seems legit.

[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.
[-]: 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 2 files.
Javadoc subpackage actually, but this is OK.

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

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

Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
 when building with ant
It has a jsonassert.pom file which is installed.  It builds using
maven not ant.

[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
 utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use .mfiles file list 

[Bug 1382928] Review Request: perl-HTTP-Entity-Parser - PSGI compliant HTTP Entity Parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382928
Bug 1382928 depends on bug 1382926, which changed state.

Bug 1382926 Summary: Review Request: perl-HTTP-MultiPartParser - HTTP MultiPart 
Parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382926

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 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 1391950] Review Request: ocaml-ocamlbuild - Build tool for OCaml libraries and programs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391950



--- Comment #9 from gil cattaneo  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
  in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
  for the package is included in %license.
  Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL (unversioned/unknown version)", "Unknown or generated".
 232 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/gil/1391950-ocaml-ocamlbuild/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/lib/ocaml/ocamlbuild(ocaml)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
 ocaml-ocamlbuild-debuginfo.i686: E: debuginfo-without-sources
[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 163840 bytes in 5 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Ocaml:
[x]: This should never happen

= 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 ocaml-
 ocamlbuild-devel , ocaml-ocamlbuild-doc , ocaml-ocamlbuild-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported 

[Bug 1382926] Review Request: perl-HTTP-MultiPartParser - HTTP MultiPart Parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382926

Jon Disnard  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 CC||jdisn...@redhat.com
 Resolution|ERRATA  |---
   Keywords||Reopened



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391950] Review Request: ocaml-ocamlbuild - Build tool for OCaml libraries and programs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391950



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

[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ocaml-
 ocamlbuild-devel , ocaml-ocamlbuild-doc , ocaml-ocamlbuild-debuginfo

Fixed in ocaml-ocamlbuild-0.9.3-3


ocaml-ocamlbuild-debuginfo.i686: E: debuginfo-without-sources

Other:
ocaml-ocamlbuild.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ocamlbuild.native
ocaml-ocamlbuild.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ocamlbuild
ocaml-ocamlbuild.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ocamlbuild.byte

a man page is available here ./ocamlbuild-0.9.3/man/ocamlbuild.1
can you install it?

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

[Bug 1391950] Review Request: ocaml-ocamlbuild - Build tool for OCaml libraries and programs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391950

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1381661] Review Request: obs-build - A generic package build script

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381661

Jon Disnard  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 CC||jdisn...@redhat.com
 Resolution|ERRATA  |---
   Keywords||Reopened



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391950] Review Request: ocaml-ocamlbuild - Build tool for OCaml libraries and programs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391950



--- Comment #8 from Richard W.M. Jones  ---
Spec URL:
http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/ocaml-ocamlbuild/ocaml-ocamlbuild.spec
SRPM URL:
http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/ocaml-ocamlbuild/ocaml-ocamlbuild-0.9.3-3.fc25.src.rpm

The updates are:

 - Don't package the META file.  This is replaced by a corrected META
   file by the ocaml-ocamlfind package.

 - Use %license

 - Add %{?_isa}

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1388344] Review Request: javapoet - API for generating .java sources

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1388344

Jon Disnard  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 CC||jdisn...@redhat.com
 Resolution|ERRATA  |---
   Keywords||Reopened



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1382875] Review Request: psad - Port Scan Attack Detector (psad) watches for suspect traffic

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382875

Jon Disnard  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 CC||jdisn...@redhat.com
 Resolution|ERRATA  |---
   Keywords||Reopened



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1392089] Review Request: python-zeroconf: Pure Python Multicast DNS Service Discovery Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392089

Peter Robinson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1392090




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392090
[Bug 1392090] Review Request: pychromecast: Python library to communicate
with the Google Chromecast.
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1392090] New: Review Request: pychromecast: Python library to communicate with the Google Chromecast.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392090

Bug ID: 1392090
   Summary: Review Request: pychromecast: Python library to
communicate with the Google Chromecast.
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: pbrobin...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Depends On: 1209685, 1392089
Blocks: 1269538 (IoT)



SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/pychromecast.spec
SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/pychromecast-0.7.7-1.fc25.src.rpm

Description:
Library for Python 2 and 3 to communicate with the Google Chromecast. It
currently supports:

-  Auto discovering connected Chromecasts on the network
-  Start the default media receiver and play any online media
-  Control playback of current playing media
-  Implement Google Chromecast api v2
-  Communicate with apps via channels
-  Easily extendable to add support for unsupported namespaces
-  Multi-room setups with Audio cast devices


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1209685
[Bug 1209685] protobuf-v3.1.0 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538
[Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392089
[Bug 1392089] Review Request: python-zeroconf: Pure Python Multicast DNS
Service Discovery 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1390156] Review Request: jsonassert - JUnit extension to write JSON unit tests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1390156

Richard W.M. Jones  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  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 1390156] Review Request: jsonassert - JUnit extension to write JSON unit tests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1390156

Richard W.M. Jones  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||rjo...@redhat.com



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

[Bug 1392089] New: Review Request: python-zeroconf: Pure Python Multicast DNS Service Discovery Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392089

Bug ID: 1392089
   Summary: Review Request: python-zeroconf: Pure Python Multicast
DNS Service Discovery Library
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: pbrobin...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Blocks: 1269538 (IoT)



SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/python-zeroconf.spec
SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/python-zeroconf-0.17.6-1.fc25.src.rpm

Description:
Pure Python Multicast DNS Service Discovery Library

koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16290711


Referenced Bugs:

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

[Bug 1391950] Review Request: ocaml-ocamlbuild - Build tool for OCaml libraries and programs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391950



--- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo  ---
other issues: "Requires:  %{name} = %{version}-%{release}"
please use "Requires:  %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}"

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391950] Review Request: ocaml-ocamlbuild - Build tool for OCaml libraries and programs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391950



--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo  ---
you should use %license LICENSE instead of %doc LICENSE in each (sub) packages

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391950] Review Request: ocaml-ocamlbuild - Build tool for OCaml libraries and programs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391950



--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo  ---
have time for review this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1390156 ?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391950] Review Request: ocaml-ocamlbuild - Build tool for OCaml libraries and programs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391950

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
purple-facebook-0.0.0.20160409-0.4.git66ee773.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora
EPEL 6 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 1387447] Review Request: php-sentry - PHP client for Sentry

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387447



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-sentry-0.22.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-311313e9de

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1387447] Review Request: php-sentry - PHP client for Sentry

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387447



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-sentry-0.22.0-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-10bf41d9af

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1387447] Review Request: php-sentry - PHP client for Sentry

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387447



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-sentry-0.22.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-1c2866b16d

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1387447] Review Request: php-sentry - PHP client for Sentry

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387447



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-sentry-0.22.0-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-782ea745d0

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1387447] Review Request: php-sentry - PHP client for Sentry

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387447

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1387447] Review Request: php-sentry - PHP client for Sentry

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387447



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-sentry-0.22.0-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-759427ad21

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391958] Review Request: trilinos - Software framework for the solution of scientific problems

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391958



--- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande  ---
>It is difficult to be complete here without a SRPM.

The package is not fully ready yet.

> going off the list of licenses available on https://trilinos.org/download
> /license/ (and ignoring the bison license, as that is almost never code that 
> ends up in a binary), you've got:
> 
> BSD and MIT and LGPLv2+ and ASL 2.0 and Public Domain

Okay, thank you.

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

[Bug 1391958] Review Request: trilinos - Software framework for the solution of scientific problems

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391958

Tom "spot" Callaway  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tcall...@redhat.com
 Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal)   |



--- Comment #1 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
It is difficult to be complete here without a SRPM. However, going off the list
of licenses available on https://trilinos.org/download/license/ (and ignoring
the bison license, as that is almost never code that ends up in a binary),
you've got:

BSD and MIT and LGPLv2+ and ASL 2.0 and Public Domain

You will need to be careful auditing the actual source tree to make sure this
is correct, given the large number of bundled software packages in this
combination, but given that this is maintained by Sandia, I have a high degree
of confidence that everything inside it is open source and compatible.

Lifting FE-Legal.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235
[Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350257] Review Request: petsc - Portable Extensible Toolkit for Scientific Computation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350257
Bug 1350257 depends on bug 1382916, which changed state.

Bug 1382916 Summary: 64-bit interface version of openblas is not using 64-bit 
integers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382916

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 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 1384729] Review Request: python3-decorator - Module to simplify usage of decorators

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1384729



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-decorator-4.0.10-2.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-2016-0f38c85d79

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1384133] Review Request: python3-suds - A python SOAP client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1384133



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-suds-0.6-1.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-cdd07de07c

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1384133] Review Request: python3-suds - A python SOAP client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1384133

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-suds-0.6-1.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-2016-2a38594e5c

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1384729] Review Request: python3-decorator - Module to simplify usage of decorators

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1384729

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-decorator-4.0.10-2.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-2016-2cbe7d2486

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1367536] Rebase clufter component [RHEL 6.9]

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1367536

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC|package-review@lists.fedora |
   |project.org |



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

[Bug 1391487] Review Request: nextcloud-client - The Nextcloud Client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391487



--- Comment #4 from Nick Bebout  ---
Please take a look at the following and let me know what you think:

- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib64/libnextcloudsync.so
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
  file-validate if there is such a file.
- update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package
  contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
  Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in nextcloud-client-dolphin
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-
  database
- Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kf5/overlayicon,
 /usr/share/nextcloud, /usr/lib64/nextcloud, /usr/share/nextcloud/i18n
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners:
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/72x72/apps,
 /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kf5/overlayicon,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/72x72, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor,
 /usr/share/nextcloud, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/512x512/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22,
 /usr/share/nextcloud/i18n, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/512x512,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/lib64/nextcloud,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 nextcloud-client-libs , nextcloud-client-devel , nextcloud-client-
 nautilus , nextcloud-client-nemo , nextcloud-client-dolphin ,
 nextcloud-client-debuginfo

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391487] Review Request: nextcloud-client - The Nextcloud Client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391487



--- Comment #3 from Nick Bebout  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib64/libnextcloudsync.so
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
  file-validate if there is such a file.
- update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package
  contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
  Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in nextcloud-client-dolphin
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-
  database


= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[ ]: 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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2)", "Unknown or
 generated", "*No copyright* Public domain", "*No copyright* BSD (3
 clause)", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1)", "BSD (2 clause)", "LGPL
 (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2)". 70
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/nebebout/1391487-nextcloud-client/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kf5/overlayicon,
 /usr/share/nextcloud, /usr/lib64/nextcloud, /usr/share/nextcloud/i18n
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners:
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/72x72/apps,
 /usr/lib64/qt5/plugins/kf5/overlayicon,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/72x72, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor,
 /usr/share/nextcloud, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/512x512/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22,
 /usr/share/nextcloud/i18n, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/512x512,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/lib64/nextcloud,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
 Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/Nextcloud/sync-exclude.lst
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
 contains icons.
 Note: icons in nextcloud-client
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into 

[Bug 1391892] Review Request: python-vitrageclient - Python client for Virage REST API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391892



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-vitrageclient-1.0.1-4.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-1f4ea9c5d5

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391892] Review Request: python-vitrageclient - Python client for Virage REST API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391892

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1391892] Review Request: python-vitrageclient - Python client for Virage REST API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391892



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-vitrageclient-1.0.1-4.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-48d37a7abd

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1385105] Review Request: python-marathon - Python client library/ interface to the Mesos Marathon REST API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385105



--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-marathon

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391892] Review Request: python-vitrageclient - Python client for Virage REST API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391892



--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-vitrageclient

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391291] Review Request: perl-DBICx-AutoDoc - Generate automatic documentation of DBIx::Class:: Schema objects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391291

Emmanuel Seyman  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-11-04 10:03:13



--- Comment #5 from Emmanuel Seyman  ---
I've imported the package, built it and released updates for f25 and f24.
Thank you for the review, Jitka.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391958] Review Request: trilinos - Software framework for the solution of scientific problems

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391958

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|122235  |182235 (FE-Legal)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=122235
[Bug 122235] Missing native language in KDE "start-menu"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235
[Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1391958] Review Request: trilinos - Software framework for the solution of scientific problems

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391958

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||122235




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=122235
[Bug 122235] Missing native language in KDE "start-menu"
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1391958




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391958
[Bug 1391958] Review Request: trilinos - Software framework for the
solution of scientific problems
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
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 1391958] Review Request: trilinos - Software framework for the solution of scientific problems

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391958

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||505154 (FE-SCITECH)
 Whiteboard||NotReady




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154
[Bug 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related
packages
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391950] Review Request: ocaml-ocamlbuild - Build tool for OCaml libraries and programs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391950



--- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones  ---
I have compiled this package successfully on x86_64, aarch64, ppc64
and ppc64le.

You will need a scratch build of OCaml 4.04 in order to build it, see:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16286440

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391958] New: Review Request: trilinos - Software framework for the solution of scientific problems

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391958

Bug ID: 1391958
   Summary: Review Request: trilinos - Software framework for the
solution of scientific problems
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: anto.tra...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/trilinos/trilinos.spec
SRPM URL: --

Description:
The Trilinos Project is an effort to develop algorithms and enabling
technologies
within an object-oriented software framework for the solution of large-scale,
complex multi-physics engineering and scientific problems.
A unique design feature of Trilinos is its focus on packages.

Fedora Account System Username: sagitter

Thais package is for Fedora, EPEL6, EPEL7

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1387447] Review Request: php-sentry - PHP client for Sentry

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387447



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391457] Review Request: python-netjsonconfig - PaNetwork configuration management library based on NetJSON DeviceConfiguration

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391457



--- Comment #10 from Charalampos Stratakis  ---
When testing the python2 subpackage I stumbled upon some tracebacks

The python2 subpackage should have a runtime requirement for python-ipaddress
module because of:
ImportError: No module named ipaddress

Also there should be a runtime requirement for python-setuptools for epel7 due
to:
ImportError: No module named pkg_resources

The python3_pkgversion macro can be used for the packages that actually use it
on their own (like python-six), thus providing that name, but not every package
uses it, so whenever you have it in you own SPEC you should check each
dependency that they actually utilize this macro at their own SPEC's.

Currently, while it can be built, it is not possible to install the python3
subpackage for epel7 as there is no python3-jinja2 and python3-jsonschema
packages for epel7.

I would suggest contacting either ttorling or orion, as they are quite active
and aware as well, of the current situation in EPEL, so they might be able to
build these dependencies or move some things, in order for your package to be
accepted, although the package review would be stalled until this situation is
resolved.

Another possibility would be to not consider EPEL7 for the time being, and try
to resolve the situation in the future, in order to make your package working
for EPEL7, so for now the review/builds/branches will be only for Fedora.

On another notice, it would be better (but not mandatory) to do some stylistic
changes so the SPEC file is more readable.

An empty line should exist between each subpackage and its respective
description like in the example SPEC [0].

Also (this is more of a personal preference), the Requires as well as the
BuildRequires for each subpackage can be placed between the summary and the
python provide macro. 

[0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file

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

[Bug 1391291] Review Request: perl-DBICx-AutoDoc - Generate automatic documentation of DBIx::Class:: Schema objects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391291



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391950] Review Request: ocaml-ocamlbuild - Build tool for OCaml libraries and programs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391950



--- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones  ---
It's not possible to do a scratch build in Koji, because it needs
OCaml 4.04 which we're in the process of rebuilding.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391951] New: Review Request: php-cs-fixer - A tool to automatically fix PHP code style

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391951

Bug ID: 1391951
   Summary: Review Request: php-cs-fixer - A tool to automatically
fix PHP code style
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/remicollet/remirepo/master/php/php-cs-fixer/php-cs-fixer.spec
SRPM URL: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-cs-fixer-1.12.3-1.remi.src.rpm
Description: 
The PHP Coding Standards Fixer tool fixes most issues in your code when you
want to follow the PHP coding standards as defined in the PSR-1 and PSR-2
documents and many more.

If you are already using a linter to identify coding standards problems in
your code, you know that fixing them by hand is tedious, especially on large
projects. This tool does not only detect them, but also fixes them for you.


Fedora Account System Username: remi



As usually, I will clean the EL-5 stuff after import

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391950] Review Request: ocaml-ocamlbuild - Build tool for OCaml libraries and programs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391950



--- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones  ---
I should say that ocamlbuild was previously part of the ocaml package,
but in OCaml >= 4.03 it has been spun out into a new package, hence
the need to add a package to Fedora.

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

[Bug 1391950] Review Request: ocaml-ocamlbuild - Build tool for OCaml libraries and programs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391950



--- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones  ---
rpmlint output is:

ocaml-ocamlbuild.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib

This is a problem in rpmlint.

ocaml-ocamlbuild.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ocamlbuild.native
ocaml-ocamlbuild.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ocamlbuild.byte
ocaml-ocamlbuild.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ocamlbuild

There is no upstream man page, but there is comprehensive documentation in
the -doc subpackage.

ocaml-ocamlbuild-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources

This is a problem but seems to be a bug in RPM.  In any case I
was able to run 'gdb' on ocamlbuild and see references to
files/lines in the source so I guess the debuginfo package is
useful and shouldn't be completely suppressed.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391950] New: Review Request: ocaml-ocamlbuild - Build tool for OCaml libraries and programs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391950

Bug ID: 1391950
   Summary: Review Request: ocaml-ocamlbuild - Build tool for
OCaml libraries and programs
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: rjo...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/ocaml-ocamlbuild/ocaml-ocamlbuild.spec
SRPM URL:
http://oirase.annexia.org/reviews/ocaml-ocamlbuild/ocaml-ocamlbuild-0.9.3-1.fc25.src.rpm
Description: Build tool for OCaml libraries and programs
Fedora Account System Username: rjones

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1359402] Review Request: coot - crystallographic macromolecular building toolkit (unretire request )

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #12 from Tim Fenn  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #11)
> >OK, so just switch this to GPLv3+ and delete all the other stuff?
> Yes.
> 

Done.

> Package Review
> ==
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> 
> Issues:
> ===
> - Package does not use a name that already exists.
>   Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
>   https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/coot
>   See:
>  
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/
> NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names
> 
> - Main package requires libcoot, not viceversa:
> 

Fixed.

> 
> - License and doc should be under '%files -n libcoot'
> 

Done.

> 
> - Python libraries should be packed separately in an arched
>   'python2-libcoot' sub-package (sorry, i didn't seen it before).
> 
>   Main package should require it.
> 

Done.

> - doc subpackage provides PDF files only, it should not require
>   the main one in my opinion.
> 

OK, done.

> - Useless ldconfig:
> 
>  %post
> /sbin/ldconfig
> /bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null || :
> 

Oops, this was a result of moving things to libcoot. Fixed.

> - coot-data ?
> 

Done (oops missed this one before).

> - I don't see any tests ran with 'make check'
> 

There are checks compiled in several subdirectories - they're not defined as
TESTS however. I could run them manually - I'll check with upstream.

> - Please, remove commands and macros in the comments
> 
> - AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
>   --
> AM_PROG_CC_STDC found in: coot-0.8.6.2/configure.ac:38
> 

This is commented out by Patch0, and autoconf is then re-run.  Acceptable?

https://timfenn.fedorapeople.org/coot.spec
https://timfenn.fedorapeople.org/coot-0.8.6.2-2.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1390063] Package Review: classloader-leak-test-framework - Detection and verification of Java ClassLoader leaks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1390063



--- Comment #5 from Pavel Raiskup  ---
missing java checks:

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

Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
 when building with ant
praiskup: installed as classloader-leak-test-framework.pom, IIUC
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
 utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1390063] Package Review: classloader-leak-test-framework - Detection and verification of Java ClassLoader leaks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1390063

Pavel Raiskup  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Pavel Raiskup  ---
APPROVED, thanks!  One minor nit, please wrap the long line in %description.


Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java
  to get additional checks


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/praiskup/packages/classloader-leak-
 test-framework/review/1390063-classloader-leak-test-
 framework/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/licenses, /usr/share/maven-metadata
praiskup: filesystem/javapackages tools
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/javadoc, /usr,
 /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share/maven-metadata, /usr/share/java,
 /usr/share, /usr/share/doc, /usr/share/maven-poms
praiskup: I'm not sure what's going on here.  OTOH, being that a java package
we
have less control over file lists ('-f .mfiles' is used).
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1391892] Review Request: python-vitrageclient - Python client for Virage REST API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391892

Javier Peña  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Javier Peña  ---
Thanks for the updates Matthias.

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)". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
 in /tmp/1391892-python-vitrageclient/licensecheck.txt
[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/bash-completion,
 /usr/share/bash-completion/completions
[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 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 python2-vitrageclient , python3-vitrageclient , python-vitrageclient-
 doc , python-vitrageclient-bash-completion
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from 

[Bug 1391892] Review Request: python-vitrageclient - Python client for Virage REST API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391892



--- Comment #4 from Matthias Runge  ---
Updated
SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-vitrageclient.spec
SRPM:
http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-vitrageclient-1.0.1-4.fc26.src.rpm

Added: 
- checks (on py27, py3.x currently fail)
- added temporary dep to oslo_log

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1387447] Review Request: php-sentry - PHP client for Sentry

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387447



--- Comment #9 from Shawn Iwinski  ---
THANKS for the review! -- and especially for catching the Monolog version
constraint

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391892] Review Request: python-vitrageclient - Python client for Virage REST API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391892



--- Comment #3 from Matthias Runge  ---
Thank you for your comments!

SPEC: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-vitrageclient.spec
SRPM:
http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-vitrageclient-1.0.1-3.fc26.src.rpm

Change:
https://github.com/mrunge/python-vitrageclient/commit/b08a6b0afecf249400b4686f2c3ba535dd61ebed

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391892] Review Request: python-vitrageclient - Python client for Virage REST API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391892

Javier Peña  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391892] Review Request: python-vitrageclient - Python client for Virage REST API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391892



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

I have some small issues with the current spec file:

- The bash-completion subpkg needs to include a license file, since it could be
installed independently of the client package.
- The python2 and python3 packages include all binaries currently (vitrage,
vitrage-3 and vitrage-3.5).
- As a nitpick, there's a typo in the summary (Virage vs Vitrage)
- Finally, I'd prefer python2 dependencies to be specified as python-* instead
of python2-*. This makes it simpler when the spec file is imported by CentOS,
which doesn't have python3 subpackages yet.

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

[Bug 1391892] Review Request: python-vitrageclient - Python client for Virage REST API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391892

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||l...@lukos.org



--- Comment #1 from Matthias Runge  ---
*** Bug 1379786 has been marked as a duplicate of this 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1391892] Review Request: python-vitrageclient - Python client for Virage REST API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391892

Javier Peña  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1391892] New: Review Request: python-vitrageclient - Python client for Virage REST API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391892

Bug ID: 1391892
   Summary: Review Request: python-vitrageclient - Python client
for Virage REST API
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: mru...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-vitrageclient.spec
SRPM URL:
http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-vitrageclient-1.0.1-2.fc26.src.rpm
Description: Python client for Vitrage REST API. Includes python library for
Vitrage API
and Command Line Interface (CLI) library.
Fedora Account System Username: mrunge

This continues https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379786

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1380942] Review Request: jwebunit - Java framework for testing web applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380942



--- Comment #13 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #12)
> @gil,
> interesting, you're doing a review for your own (initial) spec file? :)

Well some time has passed since my first draft of this spec file, and many
things have changed in the (java) guideline. You should consider to adapt the
spec file to the most recent.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391291] Review Request: perl-DBICx-AutoDoc - Generate automatic documentation of DBIx::Class:: Schema objects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391291

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Jitka Plesnikova  ---
Everything is ok.

Tha 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 1367536] Rebase clufter component [RHEL 6.9]

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1367536
Bug 1367536 depends on bug 1343661, which changed state.

Bug 1343661 Summary: Rebase clufter component [RHEL 7.3]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343661

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|RELEASE_PENDING |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1391291] Review Request: perl-DBICx-AutoDoc - Generate automatic documentation of DBIx::Class:: Schema objects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391291



--- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Seyman  ---
(In reply to Jitka Plesnikova from comment #1)
>
> FIX: Please add following build-requires:
>  make - spec file lines: 41, 44, 48
>  perl(base) - lib/DBICx/AutoDoc.pm:5
>  perl(DBIx::Class::Relationship::Helpers) - lib/DBICx/AutoDoc/Magic.pm:5
>  perl(File::Spec) - lib/DBICx/AutoDoc.pm:13
>  perl(FindBin) - lib/DBICx/AutoDoc.pm:8
>  perl(strict) - lib/DBICx/AutoDoc.pm:2
>  perl(warnings) - lib/DBICx/AutoDoc.pm:3

Added.

> FIX: Either unbundle the ./inc files and build-require the Module::Install*
>  modules whose functions are called from Makefile.PL or build-require
>  dependencies of the bundled code (`perl(File::Find)' in
>  inc/Module/Install.pm:23, `perl(File::Path)' in
> inc/Module/Install.pm:24 etc.).

I've unbundled and build-required the necessary files.

> Please correct all 'FIX' issues and provide new spec file.

Spec URL:
http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-DBICx-AutoDoc/perl-DBICx-AutoDoc.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-DBICx-AutoDoc/perl-DBICx-AutoDoc-0.08-3.fc24.src.rpm

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