[Bug 1396331] New: Review Request: elfio - C++ library for reading and generating ELF files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396331

Bug ID: 1396331
   Summary: Review Request: elfio - C++ library for reading and
generating ELF files
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: or...@cora.nwra.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/elfio.spec
SRPM URL: https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/elfio-3.2-1.fc26.src.rpm
Description:
ELFIO is a small, header-only C++ library that provides a simple interface for
reading and generating files in ELF binary format.

It is used as a standalone library - it is not dependant on any other product
or project. Adhering to ISO C++, it compiles on a wide variety of
architectures and compilers.

While the library is easy to use, some basic knowledge of the ELF binary
format is required. Such Information can easily be found on the Web.

Fedora Account System Username: orion

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1396139] Review Request: libmad - MPEG audio decoder library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396139



--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa  ---
A few notes of things that should be fixed:

* Please don't explicitly require "pkgconfig" in the devel subpackage.
"/usr/bin/pkg-config" gets added as a dependency anyway, so it's redundant.

* On your autoreconf command, please add "-v", as we want the output to be
captured in build logs.

* The conditional for "--enable-fpm=64bit" looks like it should be "%ifarch
x86_64", as it looks like 64bit is specifically talking about 64-bit x86. Thus,
the current isa bits conditional is likely wrong.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 #26 from Tim Fenn  ---
(In reply to Gianluca Sforna from comment #25)
> I just managed to build rdkit in rawhide (no docs, no tests, but at least
> we're there) so now you should be able to compile against it.

Ah great, yes - this works now:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16502991

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1395955] Review Request: fatresize - FAT16/FAT32 resizer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395955



--- Comment #4 from Michal Ambroz  ---
Hello Neal,
thanks for the comments - I have incorporated them and fixed generation of the
man-page.

Here it is:
SPEC URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/fatresize.spec
SRPM URL:
http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/fatresize-1.0.3-2.git20100729.fc24.src.rpm

Best regards
Michal Ambroz

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1392649] Review Request: tacacs+- Cisco AAA server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392649



--- Comment #5 from Philip Prindeville  ---
Did my own run of fedora-review.  Results here:

This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text



Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[ ]: 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 58 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/philipp/git/tacacs+/1392649-tacacs/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/logrotate.d
[ ]: %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(missingok,noreplace) %verify(not md5
 size mtime) %ghost /etc/tac_plus.conf
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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 81920 bytes in 1 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid 

[Bug 1389971] Review Request: Elemental - distributed-memory dense and sparse-direct linear algebra and optimizatio

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971



--- Comment #8 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl)  ---
can you explain how the ctest in %check would work for each of the two MPI
variants, and on the _installed_ binaries or on the compiled but not installed
ones?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1256104] Review Request: holtz - Abstract strategy board game collection

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256104

Jeremy Newton  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||alexjn...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Jeremy Newton  ---
The links gives 404 errors, are you still interested in this review?

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

[Bug 1394962] Review Request: clevis - Automated decryption framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394962

Nathaniel McCallum  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1396262



--- Comment #12 from Nathaniel McCallum  ---
I've fixed most issues upstream. Unfortunately, I also discovered a GCC bug
which effects clevis. I've added a reference to that bug here. Once it is
resolved, I'll get a new SRPM ready for testing.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396262
[Bug 1396262] Aggressive optimization of zeroing results in incorrect
behavior
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1379765] Review Request: dolphin-emu - GameCube / Wii / Triforce Emulator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379765

Jeremy Newton  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1364745 (FE-GAMESIG)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364745
[Bug 1364745] Games SIG tracker bug
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1379798] Review Request: pcsxr - A plugin based PlayStation (PSX) emulator with high compatibility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379798

Jeremy Newton  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1364745 (FE-GAMESIG)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364745
[Bug 1364745] Games SIG tracker bug
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1395354] Review Request: python-colorlog - A colored formatter for the python logging module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395354



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1396296] New OSP11 package from CBS -- python-tenacity

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396296

Steve Linabery  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: |New OSP11 package from CBS
   |python-tenacity - Tenacity  |-- python-tenacity
   |is a general purpose|
   |retrying python library |



-- 
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 1396296] New: Review Request: python-tenacity - Tenacity is a general purpose retrying python library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396296

Bug ID: 1396296
   Summary: Review Request: python-tenacity - Tenacity is a
general purpose retrying python library
   Product: Red Hat OpenStack
   Version: 11.0 (Ocata)
 Component: distribution
  Assignee: l...@redhat.com
  Reporter: slina...@redhat.com
QA Contact: ushka...@redhat.com
CC: cstra...@redhat.com, extras...@fedoraproject.org,
jp...@redhat.com, mar...@redhat.com,
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org,
pkila...@redhat.com, srev...@redhat.com
Depends On: 1370291
Blocks: 1329341 (RDO-NEWTON)



cbs build to import exists here:
http://cbs.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=12726

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1370291 +++

Spec URL:
https://pkilambi.fedorapeople.org/python-tenacity/python-tenacity.spec
SRPM URL:
https://pkilambi.fedorapeople.org/python-tenacity/python-tenacity-2.0.0-1.fc24.src.rpm

Description: 
 Tenacity is a general purpose retrying python library

Fedora Account System Username: pkilambi

--- Additional comment from Pradeep Kilambi on 2016-08-26 10:23:44 EDT ---

rebased to 3.0

Spec URL:
https://pkilambi.fedorapeople.org/python-tenacity/python-tenacity.spec
SRPM URL:
https://pkilambi.fedorapeople.org/python-tenacity/python-tenacity-3.0.0-1.fc24.src.rpm

--- Additional comment from Javier Peña on 2016-09-01 10:42:57 EDT ---

Hi Pradeep,

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

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

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

Thanks.

--- Additional comment from Javier Peña on 2016-09-01 10:46:31 EDT ---

Also, it would be nice to unify the descriptions, some of them seem to have
been cut.

--- Additional comment from Pradeep Kilambi on 2016-09-07 16:10:39 EDT ---

Thanks Javier. Updated the spec and srpm with fixes: please review

Spec URL:
https://pkilambi.fedorapeople.org/python-tenacity/python-tenacity.spec
SRPM URL:
https://pkilambi.fedorapeople.org/python-tenacity/python-tenacity-3.0.0-1.fc24.src.rpm

--- Additional comment from Javier Peña on 2016-09-08 05:37:11 EDT ---

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)". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
 in /tmp/1370291-python-tenacity/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the 

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

[bugzilla]

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

Steve Linabery  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1396296




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396296
[Bug 1396296] Review Request: python-tenacity - Tenacity is a general
purpose retrying python 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 1394250] Review Request: python-async-timeout - asyncio-compatible timeout context manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394250

Athmane Madjoudj  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
   |python-async_timeout -  |python-async-timeout -
   |asyncio-compatible timeout  |asyncio-compatible timeout
   |context manager |context manager



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394250] Review Request: python-async_timeout - asyncio-compatible timeout context manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394250



--- Comment #7 from Athmane Madjoudj  ---
Thanks for the feedback, update below.

SPEC: https://athmane.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/python-async-timeout.spec
SRPM:
https://athmane.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/python-async-timeout-1.1.0-3.fc25.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1028743] Review Request: hans - IP over ICMP tunneling solution

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1028743



--- Comment #5 from Michal Ambroz  ---
Hello Pavel,
thaks for packaging hans. As Christopher Meng doesn't seem to be responding I
would like to take over the package review.
I have found the spec and sources on github, but the spec and srpm is not
available for download anymore. Claimed links do not download the files.


Generally package sees good to me and - just few coments:
- update to 0.4.4 
- I would recommend to change the source reference to 
https://github.com/friedrich/%{name}/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/hans-%{version}.tar.gz
so the source file is named hans-%{version}.tar.gz
- rpmlint reports that there is missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid
Will be fixed by this patch (https://github.com/friedrich/hans/issues/15)
- I would say it is dangerous having working default configuration. I would
recommend generating random password with first use - something like server key
for the ssh.
- fix typos sulution->solution, dinamic->dynamic (hans-client.sysconfig)

Other issues from rpmlint seems to be minors.
$ rpmlint SRPMS/hans-0.4.4-1.fc24.src.rpm
RPMS/x86_64/hans-0.4.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
RPMS/x86_64/hans-client-0.4.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
RPMS/x86_64/hans-server-0.4.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
RPMS/x86_64/hans-debuginfo-0.4.4-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
hans.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US firewalled -> fire walled,
fire-walled, firewall ed
hans.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US firewalled -> fire walled,
fire-walled, firewall ed
hans.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/sbin/hans
hans.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hans
hans-client.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sulution ->
solution, insulation, ululation
hans-client.x86_64: W: no-documentation
hans-client.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /etc/sysconfig/hans-client hans
hans-client.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/hans-client 600
hans-server.x86_64: W: no-documentation
hans-server.x86_64: W: non-standard-uid /etc/sysconfig/hans-server hans
hans-server.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/sysconfig/hans-server 600
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 10 warnings.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1396273] New: Review Request: python3-netifaces - Python library to retrieve information about network interfaces

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396273

Bug ID: 1396273
   Summary: Review Request: python3-netifaces - Python library to
retrieve information about network interfaces
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: or...@cora.nwra.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python3-netifaces.spec
SRPM URL:
https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python3-netifaces-0.10.5-2.el7.src.rpm

Description:
This package provides a cross platform API for getting address information
from network interfaces.

Fedora Account System Username: orion

This is an EPEL only package - python-netifaces was added to RHEL7.3.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
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 #25 from Gianluca Sforna  ---
I just managed to build rdkit in rawhide (no docs, no tests, but at least we're
there) so now you should be able to compile against 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 1389971] Review Request: Elemental - distributed-memory dense and sparse-direct linear algebra and optimizatio

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389971



--- Comment #7 from Antonio Trande  ---
> Do you really need to compile examples (bin/examples-*) and tests files 
> (bin/tests-*)? If yes, those files should be packaged separately.

Test files looks to be just for testing. There is no need to pack them.
Sorry for misunderstanding.

export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$LD_LIBRARY_PATH:$(pwd); \
export  CTEST_OUTPUT_ON_FAILURE=1; \
ctest; \

'ctest' command goes under %check section.
See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Scriplets_are_only_allowed_to_write_in_certain_directories

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

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Whiteboard||NotReady BuildFails



--- Comment #24 from Antonio Trande  ---
(In reply to Tim Fenn from comment #23)
> (In reply to Gianluca Sforna from comment #22)
> > Sorry guys for the rdkit related issues.
> > 
> > Yes, right now I pushed the patch for the missing headers only in F24/F25
> > 
> > rdkit in rawhide had several setbacks (new archs added with missing deps, a
> > pre-release Inchi library that looks like it's breaking rdkit tests,
> > incompatible commonmark vs recommonmark python libraries, to mention a few)
> > so I am still not able to build it correctly.
> > 
> > So, for now I'd suggest you stick with F24/F25 packages to complete the
> > review, and do not bother complicating your package to build against rdkit
> > rawhide; as soon as I fix rdkit you will be able to build on all dist
> > targets with no changes.
> 
> Ah, thanks for the info Gianluca.  Antonio: the package as-is then should
> work on F24/F25, but I'll try to keep a close eye on the rdkit updates (or
> Gianluca can just update this request when its fixed?) and fix things as
> need be.  Sound good?

We have to wait then; there is no hurry.
You could open a Copr project for coot in the meantime.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1396232] New: Review Request: libkeepalive - Enable TCP keepalive in dynamic binaries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396232

Bug ID: 1396232
   Summary: Review Request: libkeepalive - Enable TCP keepalive in
dynamic binaries
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: psut...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://psutter.fedorapeople.org/libkeepalive.spec
SRPM URL: https://psutter.fedorapeople.org/libkeepalive-0.3-1.fc25.src.rpm
Description: libkeepalive is a library that enables tcp keepalive features in
glibc based binary dynamic executables, without any change in the original
program.
Fedora Account System Username: psutter

Originally I got a request for inclusion into RHEL (see private bug 1356103 for
details) but I think including this into Fedora first and then cloning from
there is the preferred method.

The library is actually quite simple: It enables TCP keepalives in binaries by
wrapping the socket() syscall and setting SO_KEEPALIVE sockopt before returning
the new socket. It is activated by setting LD_PRELOAD to it's path before
calling the binary to alter, so by default does not have any effect on other
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 1359402] Review Request: coot - crystallographic macromolecular building toolkit (unretire request )

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #23 from Tim Fenn  ---
(In reply to Gianluca Sforna from comment #22)
> Sorry guys for the rdkit related issues.
> 
> Yes, right now I pushed the patch for the missing headers only in F24/F25
> 
> rdkit in rawhide had several setbacks (new archs added with missing deps, a
> pre-release Inchi library that looks like it's breaking rdkit tests,
> incompatible commonmark vs recommonmark python libraries, to mention a few)
> so I am still not able to build it correctly.
> 
> So, for now I'd suggest you stick with F24/F25 packages to complete the
> review, and do not bother complicating your package to build against rdkit
> rawhide; as soon as I fix rdkit you will be able to build on all dist
> targets with no changes.

Ah, thanks for the info Gianluca.  Antonio: the package as-is then should work
on F24/F25, but I'll try to keep a close eye on the rdkit updates (or Gianluca
can just update this request when its fixed?) and fix things as need be.  Sound
good?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1201176] Review Request: python-pygatt - A Python Module for Bluetooth LE Generic Attribute Profile

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201176



--- Comment #6 from Fabian Affolter  ---
%changelog
* Thu Nov 17 2016 Fabian Affolter  - 3.0.0-2
- Update to latest Python guidelines

* Fri Sep 16 2016 Fabian Affolter  - 2.1.0-1
- Update to latest upstream release 2.1.0

* Tue Mar 22 2016 Fabian Affolter  - 2.0.1-1
- Update py3
- Update to latest upstream release 2.0.1

Updated files:
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-pygatt.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-pygatt-3.0.0-1.fc24.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1359244] Review Request: hpack - Header Compression for HTTP/2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359244

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|1359246 |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359246
[Bug 1359246] Review Request: netty41 - An asynchronous event-driven
network application framework and tools for Java
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1359246] Review Request: netty41 - An asynchronous event-driven network application framework and tools for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359246

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On|1359244 |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359244
[Bug 1359244] Review Request: hpack - Header Compression for HTTP/2
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1396216] Review Request: aalto-xml - Ultra-high performance non-blocking XML processor (Stax/Stax2 , SAX/SAX2)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396216

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG)




Referenced Bugs:

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

[Bug 1359246] Review Request: netty41 - An asynchronous event-driven network application framework and tools for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359246

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1396216




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396216
[Bug 1396216] Review Request: aalto-xml - Ultra-high performance
non-blocking XML processor (Stax/Stax2, SAX/SAX2)
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1396216] Review Request: aalto-xml - Ultra-high performance non-blocking XML processor (Stax/Stax2 , SAX/SAX2)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396216

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1359246




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359246
[Bug 1359246] Review Request: netty41 - An asynchronous event-driven
network application framework and tools for Java
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(kwiz...@gmail.com
   ||)



--- Comment #12 from gil cattaneo  ---
@Nicolas Please, can you change fedora-review field with "+"

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1396216] New: Review Request: aalto-xml - Ultra-high performance non-blocking XML processor (Stax/Stax2 , SAX/SAX2)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396216

Bug ID: 1396216
   Summary: Review Request: aalto-xml - Ultra-high performance
non-blocking XML processor (Stax/Stax2, SAX/SAX2)
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: punto...@libero.it
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/aalto-xml.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/aalto-xml-1.0.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description:
The Aalto XML processor is a next-generation
StAX XML processor implementation. It is not
directly related to other existing mature
implementations (such as Woodstox or
Sun Java Streaming XML Parser), although it
did come about as a prototype for evaluating
implementation strategies that differ from
those traditionally used for Java-based parsers.

Two main goals (above and beyond stock StAX/SAX API
implementation) are:

° Ultra-high performance parsing by making the
  Common Case Fast (similar to original RISC
  manifesto). This may mean limiting functionality,
  but never compromising correctness. XML 1.0
  compliancy is not sacrificed for speed.
° Allowing non-block, asynchronous parsing: it
  should be possible to "feed" more input and
  incrementally get more XML events out, without 
  forcing the current thread to block on I/O
  read operation.
Fedora Account System Username: gil

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16497347

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1201176] Review Request: python-pygatt - A Python Module for Bluetooth LE Generic Attribute Profile

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201176

Fabian Affolter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(mail@fabian-affol |
   |ter.ch) |



--- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter  ---
Sorry, forgot about that 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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo+   |



--- Comment #11 from gil cattaneo  ---
Please,

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1359246] Review Request: netty41 - An asynchronous event-driven network application framework and tools for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359246

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1209685




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1209685
[Bug 1209685] protobuf-v3.1.0 is available
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342



--- Comment #10 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) from comment #9)


> [!]: 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)". 75 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
>  licensecheck in /home/builder/1290342-ecc-25519-java/licensecheck.txt

"75 files have unknown license" refer to these files?

./ECC-25519-Android/ecc-25519/src/main/java/com/github/dazoe/android/Ed25519.java
/ECC-25519-Android*/ecc-25519/src/main/jni/*
 i don't want import these features



> [!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
for me is ok

> [?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
> [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
>  names).







> [-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
 test suite are executed as primary task, is not necessary add useless
 "sections"

> [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
>  files.
yes handled by our java tools



> Summary:
> - I'm not sure we can consider the license is public domain since few
> sources files do not contains a license header. I know this would fall under
> the definition of public domain in the guideline. But would be contradicted
> by: 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Public_Domain
> I think that the intention of the author is to have everything licensed
> under ASL 2.0 but it would requires clarification.

Not necessary, under Public Domain license are those files that i remove as
bundled code ECC-25519-Java/src/main/java/djb

> - You are missing a "-" between email and package EVR in changelog. rpmlint
> haven't found it and I don't expect it's a hard requirement. But at least
> that the format used by the rpmdev-bumpspec tool

I dont want use "-" in my spec file, and i am not interested to use that tool

> - What the point to use /usr/bin/perl over perl (as package) directly ? or
> at least the appropriate macro ?

I need only the binary for change the build scripts ...

> None of theses issues are blocker, so it should be okay

Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/ecc-25519-java.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/ecc-25519-java-1.0.3-1.fc24.src.rpm

- fix license 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 1359246] Review Request: netty41 - An asynchronous event-driven network application framework and tools for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359246

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: netty5 - An |Review Request: netty41 -
   |asynchronous event-driven   |An asynchronous
   |network application |event-driven network
   |framework and tools for |application framework and
   |Java|tools for Java



--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo  ---
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/netty41.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/netty41-4.1.6-1.fc24.src.rpm

- update to latest upstream release

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16496961

Used by ActiveMQ Artemis 1.5.0

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #14 from Orion Poplawski  ---
Sure. But thanks for the notice -
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-tornado-4.4.2-1.fc25

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342

Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(kwiz...@gmail.com |fedora-review? needinfo+
   |)   |



--- Comment #9 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  ---
Package Review
==

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


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.
[!]: 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)". 75 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/builder/1290342-ecc-25519-java/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: 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
[?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: 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
 ecc-25519-java-javadoc
[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 Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check 

[Bug 1395554] Review Request: python-astral - Calculations for the position of the sun and moon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395554

Fabian Affolter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

External Bug ID||Launchpad 1642647



--- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter  ---
(In reply to Athos Ribeiro from comment #1)
> As specified in [1], ASL 2.0 requires the license text to be distributed
> with the binaries/sources. In this case, you should ask upstream to include
> the full license text in the package. Note that in this case, this is a
> blocker for this review.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/astral/+bug/1642647

> Is there any reason for using "%bcond_with tests" and not running the %check
> section by default?

The tests are communicating with third parties.

> Finally, there is a notes.txt file in the sources, saying "Written Consent
> from Google has been obtained by following the steps outlined at the
> following location"... [2]. What is this about?
> 
> In the README file there is a note, saying:
> 
> "Access to the `GoogleGeocoder` requires you to agree to be bound by
> Google Maps/Google Earth APIs Terms of Service found at
> https://developers.google.com/maps/terms which includes but is not limited to
> having a Google Account."
> 
> When the author says `GoogleGeocoder`, is he referring to the class
> GoogleGeocoder inside this package or to the google service it accesses? Of
> course the former makes less/no sense, but that's something I kept asking
> myself when I read that.

Only 'AstralGeocoder' used so far. My guess is that the developer just want to
be on safe side. I'm wondering how 'Online Accounts' or 'Maps' in Gnome were
handled. Can't find any details about the usage of Google, Facebook, etc. in
'Online Accounts' or images from 'DigitalGlobe'.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 769487] Review Request: python-glumpy - Small python library for rapid visualization of numpy arrays

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769487



--- Comment #16 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  ---
Hi,
And sorry again for the long reply:
rpmlint ins't clean:

python3-glumpy.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) blosc -> blocs, bloc,
blossom
python3-glumpy.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US blosc -> blocs,
bloc, blossom
python3-glumpy.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/python3.5/site-packages/glumpy/ext/sdf/sdf.h
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
rpmlint python2-glumpy
python2-glumpy.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/glumpy/ext/sdf/sdf.h
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


The python3 description is not accurate.

Is there work for packaging python-triangle ?
I also found that you might be able to use ImageMagick and ffmpeg, but the
latter cannot be used as Recommands

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1395947] Review Request: pydbus - Pythonic DBus library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395947

Fabian Affolter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter  ---
- rpmlint is not happy (check below)
- The ownership of the '/usr/lib/python*/site-packages/pydbus/'
- The examples should go into a examples subpackage.
- Consider to add a %check section as tests are available.
- pydbus.spec should be python-pydbus.spec
- Download URL is wrong
- 'URL: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pydbus/%{srcname}' is very copy-&-paste
unfriendly for humans.


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.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
 upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
 licenses manually.
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
 Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
 Note: Could not download Source0:

https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/e/pydbus/pydbus-0.5.1.tar.gz
 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the 

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #13 from Raphael Groner  ---
Do you really want a newer version in EPEL7 than in Fedora 25 (currently
4.4.1)?

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #12 from Orion Poplawski  ---
Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python3-tornado.spec
SRPM URL:
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python3-tornado-4.4.2-1.el7.src.rpm

* Thu Nov 17 2016 Orion Poplawski  - 4.4.2-1
- Update to 4.4.2

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1321013] Review request: gnome-shell-extension-taskbar - GNOME Shell Extension TaskBar

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321013

zp...@openmailbox.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(zpydr@openmailbox |
   |.org)   |



--- Comment #4 from zp...@openmailbox.org ---
Spec URL: 
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/zpydr/gnome-shell-extension-taskbar-rpm/master/gnome-shell-extension-taskbar.spec

SRPM URL: 
https://github.com/zpydr/gnome-shell-extension-taskbar-rpm/blob/master/gnome-shell-extension-taskbar-53.0-1.fc24.src.rpm?raw=true

Description: 
TaskBar displays icons of running applications on the top panel.
https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/584/taskbar/

Fedora Account System Username: 
zpydr

I have updated the files according to Scott's comment. rpmlint shows no errors.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394952] Review Request: python-avocado - Framework with tools and libraries for Automated Testing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394952

Stephen Gallagher  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mmath...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(mmathesi@redhat.c
   ||om)



--- Comment #5 from Stephen Gallagher  ---

Package Review
==

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

= Issues =

* License: field only describes GPLv2, but the licensecheck shows MIT
  license as well. Please also check whether GPLv2 or GPLv2+ is correct.

* Requires for the main package should be for python2-%{srcname}, not
  python-%{srcname}

* Requires for subpackages on the main package must be fully versioned. e.g.:
  Requires: python2-%{srcname} == %{version}-%{release}
  This is to ensure that if a user runs `dnf update python2-avocado`, they are
  guaranteed to get the subpackage built together with it. If there is a
  special reason this should not happen, it needs to be in a comment in the
  spec file.

* Package uses but does not own /usr/share/avocado, /usr/share/doc/avocado,
  /etc/avocado/scripts/job, /etc/avocado/scripts, /usr/libexec/avocado

* The BuildRequires should use the python2-foo variant of the Requires, since
  the package does not support python3. The unversioned python-foo Requires is
  now reserved for packages that can switch between them (so that in the future
  the %{python_provides} macro will change which version supplies the
  unversioned name.

* The python2-avocado-plugins-output-html subpackage bundles a
  font, glyphicons-halflings-regular. This does not appear to be actually
  freely licensed for use in Fedora. Glyphicons.com appears to charge for this
  font, though it is available "for free" (no license specified) if installed
  through bootstrap (which this package does not use). See
  http://getbootstrap.com/components/#glyphicons for the line "Glyphicons
  Halflings are normally not available for free, but their creator has made
them
  available for Bootstrap free of cost.

  Unfortunately, "free of cost" is not the same thing as "freely
distributable".

  This needs to be discussed with upstream urgently.

* The python-avocado-examples subpackage needs to put all of its contents into
  the %{_docdir} hierarchy rather than %{python2_sitelib}. They are not runtime
  contents.

= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No
 copyright* GPL", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or
 later)", "GPL (v2)". 253 files have unknown license. Detailed output
 of licensecheck in /home/sgallagh/1394952-python-
 avocado/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/avocado, /usr/share/doc/avocado,
 /etc/avocado/scripts/job, /etc/avocado/scripts, /usr/libexec/avocado
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/avocado/scripts/job,
 /etc/avocado/scripts, /usr/share/doc/avocado, /usr/libexec/avocado,
 /usr/share/avocado
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 3 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.

[Bug 1395354] Review Request: python-colorlog - A colored formatter for the python logging module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395354

Athos Ribeiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
There is a set of tests which run without installing the module. It would be
nice to run those, at least. I will trust your judgement on it and leave it to
you though, so I will not block the review on this matter.

Other than that, problems are fixed. The MIT license text IS present in the
README file and there is a pull request adding a LICENSE file to the package,
as pointed out by the packager.

Package looks good to me. 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 1396139] Review Request: libmad - MPEG audio decoder library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396139

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa  ---
Taking this review.

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

[Bug 1396139] New: Review Request: libmad - MPEG audio decoder library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396139

Bug ID: 1396139
   Summary: Review Request: libmad - MPEG audio decoder library
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: kwiz...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://dl.kwizart.net/review/libmad.spec
SRPM URL: http://dl.kwizart.net/review/libmad-0.15.1b-17.fc26.src.rpm
Description: MPEG audio decoder library
Fedora Account System Username: kwizart

koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16494755

This package was previously in a 3rd part repository. And given that mp3
decoding is now allowed in fedora, it has to be moved here.

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

[Bug 1395955] Review Request: fatresize - FAT16/FAT32 resizer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395955



--- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa  ---
Going point by point:

> Release:1.git20100729

Please add %{?dist} at the end. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag for more information.

> Group:  File tools

Mandrake RPM groups (used by Mandrake and its derivatives, such as Mageia and
ALT Linux) are not permitted. Either select the appropriate Red Hat RPM
group[1] or remove the Group tag entirely, as it is optional in Fedora unless
you intend to make this available for CentOS/RHEL 5 via EPEL.

[1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RPMGroups

> autoreconf -if

Please use "autoreconf -fiv", as we want the output to be seen in the logs.

> make

Unless it breaks with it, please use "%make_build" for parallel make

> %_sbindir/*
> %_mandir/man1/*

Please use %{_sbindir} and %{_mandir} instead of %_sbindir and %_mandir.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1376932] Review Request: python3-markupsafe - Implements a XML/HTML/ XHTML Markup safe string for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376932



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-markupsafe-0.23-1.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-abe8665c7c

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1376932] Review Request: python3-markupsafe - Implements a XML/HTML/ XHTML Markup safe string for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376932

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-markupsafe-0.23-1.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-2016-97d424a8e6

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1395955] Review Request: fatresize - FAT16/FAT32 resizer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395955

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa  ---
Taking this review.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
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 #4 from Peter Robinson  ---
(In reply to Athos Ribeiro from comment #2)
> There are also some missing Requires:

Feel free to actually list them explicitly, I'll get back to this next week,
I've been dealing with f25 release so that's taken priority.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1391444] Review Request: boost159 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391444

Javier Peña  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jp...@redhat.com



--- Comment #2 from Javier Peña  ---
I've tried a package build and it failed for me. I found this in the log file:

+ ./b2 -d+2 -q -j8 --without-mpi --without-graph_parallel --build-dir=serial
variant=release threading=multi debug-symbols=on pch=off python=2.7 stage
/builddir/build/BUILD/boost_1_59_0/tools/build/src/tools/gcc.jam:149: in
gcc.init from module gcc
error: toolset gcc initialization:
error: no command provided, default command 'g++' not found
error: initialized from
/builddir/build/BUILD/boost_1_59_0/tools/build/src/user-config.jam:4

Not sure if something is missing in my mock environment, or we need g++ as a
build requirement.

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

[bugzilla]

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

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1396053




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396053
[Bug 1396053] Enable python-tornado for python-pika
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1309909] Review Request: python3-tornado - Scalable, non-blocking web server and tools

[bugzilla]

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

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|projects...@smart.ms
 Whiteboard|NotReady|



--- Comment #11 from Raphael Groner  ---
(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #5)
> This is waiting on a python3-pycurl package.

The review for python3-pycurl is approved, we can continue here.
python3-tornado should be enabled for python-pika on EPEL. Expect something to
this request from me in the next days.

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