[Bug 1374899] Review Request: quassel-irssi - An irssi plugin to connect to quassel core

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374899



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
quassel-irssi-0-2.20161120gitcbd9bd7.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24
stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.

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

[Bug 1382367] Review Request: compat-openssl10 - Previous version of OpenSSL library for compatibility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382367

Tomas Mraz  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-12-07 02:49:02



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1401967] Review Request: qcad - Powerful 2D CAD system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401967



--- Comment #2 from Kevin Kofler  ---
> I don't know if Hershey license can be accepted on Fedora.

Yes, it is accepted, as per:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses_4

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

[Bug 1397089] Review Request: dnscrypt-proxy-gui - The GUI wrapped over dnscrypt-proxy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1397089

greg.helli...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||greg.helli...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|greg.helli...@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 1395244] Review Request: python3-zope-event - Zope Event Publication

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395244

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Randy Barlow  ---
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: "Unknown or generated". 81 files have unknown license. Detailed 
 output of licensecheck in /home/rbarlow/reviews/1395244-python3-zope-  
 event/licensecheck.txt 
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. 
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.5/site-  
 packages/zope(python3-zope-sqlalchemy, python3-zope-event, python3 
 -zope-exceptions)  
[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 645120 bytes in 41 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]: 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

[Bug 1378341] Review Request: fedpkg-copr - copr dist-git client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378341



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
fedpkg-copr-0.10-1.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-2016-7cce295511

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1378341] Review Request: fedpkg-copr - copr dist-git client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378341



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
fedpkg-copr-0.10-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ce23de

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1378341] Review Request: fedpkg-copr - copr dist-git client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378341



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
fedpkg-copr-0.10-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-72238a350a

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1369708] Review Request: tpm2-tss - TPM2.0 Software Stack

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369708



--- Comment #58 from Gang Wei  ---
(In reply to Yunying Sun from comment #55)
> (In reply to Josh Boyer from comment #54)
> > (In reply to Dan Horák from comment #53)
> > > Isn't this request a duplicate of
> > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/tss2/ ?
> > 
> > Maybe... but I think it is a separate implementation of similar
> > functionality?  
> It seems true to me, that it's separate user space implementations of TCG's
> TSS 
> for TPM2.0. The functionalities and usage should be the same mostly, but
> implementations are different.
> 
> Intel's implementation contains 2 tools, the TPM2.0-TSS and tpm2.0-tools,
> while IBM's solution is all in one package.
> 
> @Jimmy, please do correct me if I misunderstood.

Yunying is right. Intel's implementation of TSS2 is strictly following the TCG
TSS2 SAPI & TCTI spec and is the reference implementation of the spec.

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

[Bug 1378341] Review Request: fedpkg-copr - copr dist-git client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378341

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
fedpkg-copr-0.10-1.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-d894856c70

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 #28 from Tim Fenn  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #27)
> Created attachment 1221971 [details]
> review log
> 
> Package Review
> ==
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> 
> Issues:
> ===
> 
> - > sed -i -e 's! -shared ! -Wl,--as-needed\0!g' libtool <-
> 
> This commands does not work.
> Try to set LDFLAGS="$RPM_LD_FLAGS -Wl,--as-needed"
> 

Can't get this to work - part of the problem is many of these dependencies are
pulled in using pkg-config, so there isn't a simple solution that I can think
of/come up with.  Any suggestions?

> - undefined-non-weak-symbol warnings appears on rawhide only; something is
> changed in new release
> (see rpmlint output). Please ask to upstream.
> 

This is straightforward to fix, but I'm more concerned about how to handle the
shlib issue?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1369708] Review Request: tpm2-tss - TPM2.0 Software Stack

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369708



--- Comment #57 from Jerry Snitselaar  ---
Looking to the future and RHEL, I noticed when taking a look autoconf-archive
and libcmocka are only available in EPEL. The autoconf-archive was just using
the pthread macro, so should be easy enough to deal with. Cmocka is used in the
test application.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1399365] Review Request: gap-pkg-xmod - Crossed Modules and Cat1-Groups for GAP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1399365



--- Comment #2 from Jerry James  ---
Indeed, the package home moved and there is a new version.  New URLs:

Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-xmod/gap-pkg-xmod.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-xmod/gap-pkg-xmod-2.58-1.fc26.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 1401961] Review Request: madplay - MPEG audio decoder and player

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401961

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 1401961] Review Request: madplay - MPEG audio decoder and player

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401961



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
madplay-0.15.2b-11.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-35125c4963

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1401961] Review Request: madplay - MPEG audio decoder and player

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401961



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
madplay-0.15.2b-11.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-56346b6f1e

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1289717] Review Request: viennacl - Linear algebra and solver library using CUDA, OpenCL, and OpenMP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289717



--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System  ---
viennacl-1.7.1-3.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8fe5ca8d90

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1289717] Review Request: viennacl - Linear algebra and solver library using CUDA, OpenCL, and OpenMP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289717



--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System  ---
viennacl-1.7.1-3.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b231f2b6d4

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1402164] Review Request: pydf - Fully colorized df clone written in python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402164



--- Comment #1 from Devin Henderson  ---
I forgot to link to the original bug report where the current maintainer stated
that he doesn't have time to upgrade the package -->

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1338050

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1402164] New: Review Request: pydf - Fully colorized df clone written in python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402164

Bug ID: 1402164
   Summary: Review Request: pydf - Fully colorized df clone
written in python
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: de...@six19.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://devhen.org/rpm/pydf/f25/pydf.spec
SRPM URL: https://devhen.org/rpm/pydf/f25/pydf-12-1.fc25.src.rpm
Description: pydf displays the amount of used and available space on your file
systems, just like df, but in colors. The output format is completely
customizable.
Fedora Account System Username: devhen

This is my first package and I need a sponsor.

pydf is in Fedora (for <= f24) and in EPEL (for el5 & el6) but is very
outdated. The latest is version 12 and Fedora/EPEL have version 9.

I submitted a bug report asking for the package to be upgraded to which the
current maintainer replied that he doesn't have the time. So I would like to
take over maintenance duties for the this package. I've created updated
packages for f24, f25, f26, el6, and el7.

https://devhen.org/rpm/pydf/f24/pydf-12-1.fc24.src.rpm
https://devhen.org/rpm/pydf/f25/pydf-12-1.fc25.src.rpm
https://devhen.org/rpm/pydf/f26/pydf-12-1.fc26.src.rpm
https://devhen.org/rpm/pydf/el6/pydf-12-1.el6.src.rpm
https://devhen.org/rpm/pydf/el7/pydf-12-1.el7.src.rpm


I have made as little changes to the original rpms as possible. pydf version 12
supports python 3 so I've changed the spec to require python 3 instead of
python 2. I've also added a sed command to %prep that changes the shebang in
the pydf executable from /usr/bin/python to /usr/bin/python3. Other than that,
and version number & changelog changes, everything else in the rpms & spec
files has stayed the same aside from the new pydf version 12 source code
(upstream:
http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/software/pydf/pydf_12.tar.gz).

I have tested these on f24, f25, el6, and el7 and they work well. I have also
run koji scratch builds and they have all finished successfully.

Successful f24 koji build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16776736

Successful f25 koji build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16776559

Successful f26 koji build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16776763

Successful el6 koji build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16776894

Successful el7 koji build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16776834


Please let me know if there is someone who would be willing to sponsor me and
help me with my first package submission. I hope to be able to contribute this
package as well as more packages in the future!

Thanks,

FAS User: devhen
Devin Henderson
de...@six19.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 1401961] Review Request: madplay - MPEG audio decoder and player

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401961



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/madplay

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1400261] Review Request (rename): qrmumps - A multithreaded multifrontal QR solver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1400261



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
qrmumps-2.0-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-b67f3530e0

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1400261] Review Request (rename): qrmumps - A multithreaded multifrontal QR solver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1400261



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
qrmumps-2.0-4.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6ec29baa85

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1400261] Review Request (rename): qrmumps - A multithreaded multifrontal QR solver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1400261



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
qrmumps-2.0-4.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-2036a8c913

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1400261] Review Request (rename): qrmumps - A multithreaded multifrontal QR solver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1400261

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 1394789] Review Request: neovim - Vim-fork focused on extensibility and agility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394789

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 1394789] Review Request: neovim - Vim-fork focused on extensibility and agility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394789



--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
neovim-0.1.7-4.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b8f61d4abb

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1401414] Review Request: python-neovim - Python client to Neovim

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1401414] Review Request: python-neovim - Python client to Neovim

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-neovim-0.1.12-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-125fc45785

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 #46 from Fedora Update System  ---
elemental-0.87.5-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6ca5b05dc6

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

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 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 #45 from Fedora Update System  ---
elemental-0.87.5-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-563959753e

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

MartinKG  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||mgans...@alice.de
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mgans...@alice.de



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1401961] Review Request: madplay - MPEG audio decoder and player

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401961

Wolfgang Ulbrich  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |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 1401961] Review Request: madplay - MPEG audio decoder and player

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401961

Wolfgang Ulbrich  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #1 from Wolfgang Ulbrich  ---
Approved!

There are only a lot of rpmlint incorrect-fsf-address errors but this needs to
be fixed by upstream.
Please file out a report there.

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: 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]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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.
[]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1400236] Review Request: python-podcastparser - Simplified, fast RSS parsing library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1400236



--- Comment #5 from Dhanesh B. Sabane  ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #4)
> Not really. The guidelines say that macros should be used for directory
> names [1] (and it's "should", not "must", there are various exceptions) and
> some binaries. Replacing every instance of the package name with a macro
> just makes it harder to copy the text, or to click on a link to open
> it, etc.
> 
> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros

Roger that!

> > python-podcastparser.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
> > https://github.com/gpodder/podcastparser/archive/v0.6.0.tar.gz#/
> 
> Ah, the "v" shouldn't be there. Source0 should be
> %{url}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{modname}-%{version}.tar.gz

I learned something new today.  I didn't know the part after # allows the
tarball to be renamed.  Thanks for the clarifications. :)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1400261] Review Request (rename): qrmumps - A multithreaded multifrontal QR solver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1400261



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1401414] Review Request: python-neovim - Python client to Neovim

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414



--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-neovim

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394789] Review Request: neovim - Vim-fork focused on extensibility and agility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394789



--- Comment #22 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/neovim

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1400236] Review Request: python-podcastparser - Simplified, fast RSS parsing library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1400236



--- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
(In reply to Dhanesh B. Sabane from comment #3)
> (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #2)
> > Why?
> So that consistency is maintained.  As far as I know, one of the
> requirements of a good package is that it consistently uses macros.

Not really. The guidelines say that macros should be used for directory names
[1] (and it's "should", not "must", there are various exceptions) and some
binaries. Replacing every instance of the package name with a macro just makes
it harder to copy the text, or to click on a link to open it, etc.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros

> python-podcastparser.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
> https://github.com/gpodder/podcastparser/archive/v0.6.0.tar.gz#/

Ah, the "v" shouldn't be there. Source0 should be
%{url}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz#/%{modname}-%{version}.tar.gz

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1393947] Review Request: cinch - A tool for provisioning Jenkins components for CI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393947



--- Comment #2 from Fl@sh  ---
success build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16774595

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1371158] Review Request: ebtree - Elastic binary tree library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371158

Ralf Corsepius  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rc040...@freenet.de



--- Comment #4 from Ralf Corsepius  ---
Building doesn't honor optflags correctly:

From build.log:
...
cc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4
-grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -m64
-mtune=generic -O3 -fPIC -o ebtree.o -c ebtree.c
...
cc -O3 -fPIC -o test32 test32.c -L. -lebtree
...

In the first call, the -O3 near to the end overrides -O2.

In the second call optflags isn't used at all.

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

[Bug 1382152] Review Request: orpie - scientific calculator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382152

Jared Wallace  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1382152] Review Request: orpie - scientific calculator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382152

Jared Wallace  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-12-06 13:07:11



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

[Bug 1400236] Review Request: python-podcastparser - Simplified, fast RSS parsing library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1400236



--- Comment #3 from Dhanesh B. Sabane  ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #2)
> Why?
So that consistency is maintained.  As far as I know, one of the requirements
of a good package is that it consistently uses macros.

> What do you mean by incorrect? Including the part after # allows the tarball
> to be renamed (spectool will use the part after the last slash as the output
> name).

Rpmlint output:

Checking: python2-podcastparser-0.6.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
  python3-podcastparser-0.6.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
  python-podcastparser-0.6.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
python2-podcastparser.noarch: W: invalid-license ASL ISC
python3-podcastparser.noarch: W: invalid-license ASL ISC
python-podcastparser.src: W: invalid-license ASL ISC
python-podcastparser.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://github.com/gpodder/podcastparser/archive/v0.6.0.tar.gz#/podcastparser-0.6.0.tar.gz
HTTP Error 404: Not Found
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 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 1400236] Review Request: python-podcastparser - Simplified, fast RSS parsing library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1400236

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl



--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
(In reply to Dhanesh B. Sabane from comment #1)
> Disclaimer: This is an unofficial review.
> 
> * Use the modname macro in the package name too.
Why?

> * There is no need to declare a separate macro for summary.  Just enter the
> summary for the first time and then you can use %{summary} everywhere else. 
> 
> * Source0 is incorrect.  It should be 
> %{url}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz
What do you mean by incorrect? Including the part after # allows the tarball to
be renamed (spectool will use the part after the last slash as the output
name).

> * The license associated with the source seems to be ISC only.  I don't
> understand why ASL is required here.  
> 
> * The description is too terse.  Could you elaborate a bit?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1400236] Review Request: python-podcastparser - Simplified, fast RSS parsing library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1400236

Dhanesh B. Sabane  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||dhanes...@disroot.org



--- Comment #1 from Dhanesh B. Sabane  ---
Disclaimer: This is an unofficial review.

* Use the modname macro in the package name too.

* There is no need to declare a separate macro for summary.  Just enter the
summary for the first time and then you can use %{summary} everywhere else. 

* Source0 is incorrect.  It should be 

%{url}/archive/%{version}.tar.gz

* The license associated with the source seems to be ISC only.  I don't
understand why ASL is required here.  

* The description is too terse.  Could you elaborate a bit?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1302744] Review Request: python-resumable-urlretrieve - Small library to fetch files over HTTP and resuming their download

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302744



--- Comment #5 from Haïkel Guémar  ---
Used port is PORT + 1, so 8001 according code.
8001 is used on my local machine by weechat but it'd better to randomize port
(and check if it's unused before running tests)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1302744] Review Request: python-resumable-urlretrieve - Small library to fetch files over HTTP and resuming their download

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302744



--- Comment #4 from Haïkel Guémar  ---
Tests fails in mock as it tries to bind a socket already in use, if you silence
them, build's ok. 
Failing test is test_norange

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1397089] Review Request: dnscrypt-proxy-gui - The GUI wrapped over dnscrypt-proxy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1397089

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl



--- Comment #14 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Summary: GUI wrapper for dnscrypt-proxy

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1393947] Review Request: cinch - A tool for provisioning Jenkins components for CI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393947

Fl@sh  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||alex.mail.1...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|alex.mail.1...@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 1393947] Review Request: cinch - A tool for provisioning Jenkins components for CI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393947



--- Comment #1 from greg.helli...@gmail.com ---
New SRPM:
https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/cinch/cinch-0.2.1-1.fc25.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1359914] Review Request: lollypop - Music player for GNOME

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359914



--- Comment #20 from Jeremy Newton  ---
(In reply to MartinKG from comment #19)
> (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #18)
> > I'll take a look into this night or tomorrow.
> 
> You are welcome.
> 
> This information reached me on 2 December from the developer Cédric
> Bellegarde
> 
> Hello dear Lollypop packagers ;)
> 
> Next lollypop release will depends on this dbus service:
> https://github.com/gnumdk/lollypop-portal
> 
> So you will need to package it as well (and rpm packagers, make sure
> /usr/share/lollypop/lollypop-portal is +x).

You should be able to just make this a sub-package later on. I feel like it
would be a waste to make this a separate package.

As well, I'm not sure if you got my email, if you have time, can you swap with
me? I'm trying to move a bunch of packages from rpmfusion into Fedora due to
changes in Fedora's policies and I have two left. In return, I can help push
along your unassigned reviews.

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

[Bug 1394789] Review Request: neovim - Vim-fork focused on extensibility and agility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394789



--- Comment #21 from Filip Szymański  ---
I was thinking of changing Recommends python{2,3}-neovim to Suggests.
This way we get fewer dependencies (Python packages or only suggested not
installed). They are not necessary to run neovim.

What do you think guys?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1401596] Review Request: python-yamllint - A linter for YAML files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401596

Adam Miller  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Adam Miller  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines


= 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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/admiller/reviews/1401596-python-yamllint/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
 packages/yamllint/__pycache__(yamllint), /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
 packages/yamllint/conf(yamllint), /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
 packages/yamllint/rules(yamllint), /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
 packages/yamllint(yamllint), /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
 packages/yamllint/rules/__pycache__(yamllint)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[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]: 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:
[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 

[Bug 1401596] Review Request: python-yamllint - A linter for YAML files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401596

Adam Miller  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||admil...@redhat.com
   Docs Contact||admil...@redhat.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 1365794] Review Request: python-keyrings-alt - Alternate keyring implementations for python-keyring

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365794



--- Comment #3 from Charalampos Stratakis  ---
Pull request has been merged and version 1.2 was released which includes the
MIT license file, so the review can proceed.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1394789] Review Request: neovim - Vim-fork focused on extensibility and agility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394789

Jakub Hrozek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #20 from Jakub Hrozek  ---
OK, strange that fedora-review explicitly flags gcc. I don't have any more
comments, then.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1401961] Review Request: madplay - MPEG audio decoder and player

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401961

Wolfgang Ulbrich  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 1401961] Review Request: madplay - MPEG audio decoder and player

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401961

Wolfgang Ulbrich  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||chat-to...@raveit.de
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|chat-to...@raveit.de



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1359914] Review Request: lollypop - Music player for GNOME

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359914



--- Comment #19 from MartinKG  ---
(In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #18)
> I'll take a look into this night or tomorrow.

You are welcome.

This information reached me on 2 December from the developer Cédric Bellegarde

Hello dear Lollypop packagers ;)

Next lollypop release will depends on this dbus service:
https://github.com/gnumdk/lollypop-portal

So you will need to package it as well (and rpm packagers, make sure
/usr/share/lollypop/lollypop-portal is +x).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1401013] Review Request: git-octopus - Git commands for continuous delivery

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401013



--- Comment #7 from Andrea Baita  ---
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/danoliv/git-octopus-spec/master/git-octopus.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/baitaand/git-octopus/fedora-25-i386/00485440-git-octopus/git-octopus-1.4-2.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 1394789] Review Request: neovim - Vim-fork focused on extensibility and agility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394789



--- Comment #19 from Filip Szymański  ---
"If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires
against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Those packages will include everything that is
required to build a standards conforming C or C++ application."

From: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#Packaging

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1371158] Review Request: ebtree - Elastic binary tree library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371158



--- Comment #3 from Ingvar Hagelund  ---
Thanks Petr

Updated spec: https://ingvar.fedorapeople.org/ebtree/ebtree.spec
Updated srpm:
https://ingvar.fedorapeople.org/ebtree/ebtree-6.0.8-2.fc25.src.rpm

> TODO: Execute tests from %check section. Upstream has tests. 

There are test binaries, but no test suite. I made a little script that runs
the test with some random values, and checks that what comes in gets out. I
guess that will do.

> Actually it would  be great if the tests used the dynamic library so they 
> checked the bits the RPM package will deliver to users. They uses the static 
> library now.

Do they?

[ingvar@netcat ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/ebtree-6.0.8]$ echo 42 | ./test32 42
./test32: error while loading shared libraries: libebtree.so.0: cannot open
shared object file: No such file or directory

[ingvar@netcat ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/ebtree-6.0.8]$ ldd test32
linux-vdso.so.1 (0x7ffec21ee000)
libebtree.so.0 => not found
libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x7fab965b2000)
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x55a621bb4000)


[ingvar@netcat ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/ebtree-6.0.8]$ export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=.

[ingvar@netcat ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/ebtree-6.0.8]$ ldd test32
linux-vdso.so.1 (0x7ffd46de4000)
libebtree.so.0 => ./libebtree.so.0 (0x7f2668726000)
libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x7f266832f000)
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x557a4ca2a000)

[ingvar@netcat ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/ebtree-6.0.8]$ echo 42 | ./test32 42
Dump of command line values :
node 0x1ec7010 = 42
Now enter lookup values, one per line.
eq: node=0x1ec7010, val=42
le: node=0x1ec7010, val=42
ge: node=0x1ec7010, val=42

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1401013] Review Request: git-octopus - Git commands for continuous delivery

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401013



--- Comment #6 from Andrea Baita  ---
Spec updated with doc generation:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/danoliv/git-octopus-spec/master/git-octopus.spec

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

[Bug 1394789] Review Request: neovim - Vim-fork focused on extensibility and agility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394789



--- Comment #18 from Jakub Hrozek  ---
Fedora-review says:

Issues:
===
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: gcc
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2

Remove the gcc dependency and I'll approve :)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1359914] Review Request: lollypop - Music player for GNOME

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359914

Jeremy Newton  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||alexjn...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|alexjn...@gmail.com



--- Comment #18 from Jeremy Newton  ---
I'll take a look into this night or tomorrow.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1401414] Review Request: python-neovim - Python client to Neovim

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414

Jakub Hrozek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |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 1401414] Review Request: python-neovim - Python client to Neovim

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414



--- Comment #11 from Jakub Hrozek  ---
I think the package looks good, so I'm giving review+

For posterity, here is fedora-review output:
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines


= 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". 36 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/remote/jhrozek/1401414-python-
 neovim/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.
[n/a]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[n/a]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[n/a]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[n/a]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[n/a]: 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).
[n/a]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 python2-neovim , python3-neovim
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[n/a]: 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.
[n/a]: %check is present and all tests 

[Bug 1401967] Review Request: qcad - Powerful 2D CAD system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401967

John Florian  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||john.flor...@dart.biz



--- Comment #1 from John Florian  ---
Awesome!  I'd love to see this back in Fedora, I've been using it all along but
that was a relative pain.  I was going to offer my spec, but it looks as though
you already have one.  I'm still happy to share if you want to compare.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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||1401967




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401967
[Bug 1401967] Review Request: qcad - Powerful 2D CAD system
-- 
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 1401967] Review Request: qcad - Powerful 2D CAD system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401967

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal), 505154
   ||(FE-SCITECH)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235
[Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
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 1401967] New: Review Request: qcad - Powerful 2D CAD system

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401967

Bug ID: 1401967
   Summary: Review Request: qcad - Powerful 2D CAD system
   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/qcad/qcad.spec
SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/qcad/qcad-3.15.6.1-1.fc25.src.rpm

Description:
QCAD is an application for computer aided drafting (CAD) in two dimensions
(2D).
With QCAD you can create technical drawings such as plans for buildings,
interiors, mechanical parts or schematics and diagrams.
QCAD was designed with modularity, extensibility and portability in mind.
But what people notice most often about QCAD is its intuitive
user interface.
QCAD is an easy to use but powerful 2D CAD system for everyone.
You don't need any CAD experience to get started with QCAD immediately.

Fedora Account System Username: sagitter

This is a review request for un-retiring QCad on Fedora
(https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/qcad/). Now upstream
provides an open-source community edition version of QCad including files with
following licenses:

## Main license: GPLv3
##
## 3rd parties licenses: 
## dxflib: GPLv2+.
#  See src/3rdparty/dxflib/gpl-2.0greater.txt
## opennurbs: Public domain (neither copyright nor copyleft apply).
#  See src/3rdparty/opennurbs/readme.txt
## quazip: LPGLv2+.
#  See src/3rdparty/quazip/lgpl-2.1.txt
## spatialindexnavel:  MIT
#  See src/3rdparty/spatialindexnavel/COPYING
## stemmer: BSD 2-Clause License
#  See src/3rdparty/stemmer/bsd-2.txt
## Hershey fonts are released under the terms described in
fonts/hershey.readme.
## Other fonts in directory 'fonts' are released as public domain (all
copyright
## is waived).

I don't know if Hershey license can be accepted 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 1374510] Review Request: lv2-ir-plugins - LV2 Plugin: low-latency, realtime, high performance signal convolver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374510



--- Comment #7 from Guido Aulisi  ---
Upstream has merged the incorrect FSF address patch
(https://github.com/tomszilagyi/ir.lv2/pull/1), so the next release will
correctly report the FSF address.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1401961] New: Review Request: madplay - MPEG audio decoder and player

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401961

Bug ID: 1401961
   Summary: Review Request: madplay - MPEG audio decoder and
player
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: leigh123li...@googlemail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/madplay/1/madplay.spec
SRPM URL:
https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/review/madplay/1/madplay-0.15.2b-11.fc26.src.rpm

Description:

madplay is a command-line MPEG audio decoder and player based on the
MAD library (libmad).  For details about MAD, see the separately
distributed libmad package.

Fedora Account System Username: leigh123linux

This package was previously in rpmfusion 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 1401450] Review Request: pcb2gcode - Command-line software for the isolation, routing and drilling of PCBs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401450

Fabio Alessandro Locati  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||f...@redhat.com



--- Comment #2 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
Guido, remember to check and fill all the bullets points created by
fedora-review. Many are completed automatically by fedora-review, but the
others should be completed manually (are the ones with "[ ]").

Cheers

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1401450] Review Request: pcb2gcode - Command-line software for the isolation, routing and drilling of PCBs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401450

Guido Aulisi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||guido.aul...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Guido Aulisi  ---
This is an unofficial review.

The Group: tag is unnecessary.

You should add BuildRequires: gcc-c++, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B

You could use %make_build instead of make %{?_smp_mflags}

The package looks good to me, these are really less than minor issues. This is
the output of fedora-review:

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]: 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)", "BSL (v1.0)", "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or
 later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 18 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/guido/tmp/1401450-pcb2gcode/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: %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.
[ ]: 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 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 967782] Review Request: jailkit - A set of utilities to limit Chroot

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967782



--- Comment #10 from Joe Cooper  ---
I've made a stab at packaging this, starting from the package found in the Lux
repo (which was itself based on an old Dag Wieers package), since the packages
referenced in this ticket are no longer accessible.

I made the changes suggested in this ticket, as best I could figure out, and
added setcap on jk_chrootsh (using the %caps macro) so that it actually works.
It passes rpmlint without errors/warnings, but I have no idea if it is correct
for Fedora or EPEL. But, since there's not currently a functional package for
CentOS or Fedora that I could find, I figured someone in the future might find
a working package useful. I haven't yet done any testing beyond a basic chroot
shell, but that functionality works without any modifications, just following
the instructions on the Jailkit site.

http://software.virtualmin.com/bleed/centos/7/SRPMS/jailkit-2.19-1.el7.centos.vm.3.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 1369708] Review Request: tpm2-tss - TPM2.0 Software Stack

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369708



--- Comment #56 from Dan Horák  ---
(In reply to Yunying Sun from comment #55)
> (In reply to Josh Boyer from comment #54)
> > (In reply to Dan Horák from comment #53)
> > > Isn't this request a duplicate of
> > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/tss2/ ?
> > 
> > Maybe... but I think it is a separate implementation of similar
> > functionality?  
> It seems true to me, that it's separate user space implementations of TCG's
> TSS 
> for TPM2.0. The functionalities and usage should be the same mostly, but
> implementations are different.
> 
> Intel's implementation contains 2 tools, the TPM2.0-TSS and tpm2.0-tools,
> while IBM's solution is all in one package.
> 
> @Jimmy, please do correct me if I misunderstood.
> 
> > 
> > Vicky and Tomas the the review on tss2 and Yunying was also commented on it.
> > They're all on CC for this one as well, so I think we can get that cleared
> > up soon.
> @Josh, What do you mean the "cleaned up"? Will this package have to be
> rejected for Fedora due to existing approved tss2, or co-existing is allowed?

Yes, they can co-exist in Fedora, but we need to be careful about things like
file conflicts (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts). But I was
mainly curious about the relationship between these two.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1369708] Review Request: tpm2-tss - TPM2.0 Software Stack

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369708

Yunying Sun  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(fedora@besser82.i |
   |o)  |
   |needinfo?(yunying.sun@intel |
   |.com)   |



--- Comment #55 from Yunying Sun  ---
(In reply to Josh Boyer from comment #54)
> (In reply to Dan Horák from comment #53)
> > Isn't this request a duplicate of
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/tss2/ ?
> 
> Maybe... but I think it is a separate implementation of similar
> functionality?  
It seems true to me, that it's separate user space implementations of TCG's TSS 
for TPM2.0. The functionalities and usage should be the same mostly, but
implementations are different.

Intel's implementation contains 2 tools, the TPM2.0-TSS and tpm2.0-tools, while
IBM's solution is all in one package.

@Jimmy, please do correct me if I misunderstood.

> 
> Vicky and Tomas the the review on tss2 and Yunying was also commented on it.
> They're all on CC for this one as well, so I think we can get that cleared
> up soon.
@Josh, What do you mean the "cleaned up"? Will this package have to be rejected
for Fedora due to existing approved tss2, or co-existing is allowed?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1397140] Review Request: mrrescue - Arcade-style fire fighting game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1397140



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
mrrescue-1.02e-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1394252] Review Request: perl-Net-CalDAVTalk - CalDAV client with JSON data interface

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394252



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Net-CalDAVTalk-0.09-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-colorlog-2.9.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1394262] Review Request: perl-Net-CardDAVTalk - CardDAV client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1394262



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Net-CardDAVTalk-0.03-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1382655] Review Request: pology - CLI tools for PO files processing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382655



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
pology-0.12-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1393129] Review Request: python-aexpect - a python library to control interactive applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393129



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-aexpect-1.2.0-3.20161110gitaca459d.fc24, python-avocado-43.0-6.fc24 has
been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist,
please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1394952] Review Request: python-avocado - Framework with tools and libraries for Automated Testing

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-aexpect-1.2.0-3.20161110gitaca459d.fc24, python-avocado-43.0-6.fc24 has
been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist,
please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1343977] Review Request: rubygem-asciidoctor-mallard - A Project Mallard converter for AsciiDoc

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343977

Vít Ondruch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(vondruch@redhat.c |
   |om) |



--- Comment #13 from Vít Ondruch  ---
(In reply to Tummala Dhanvi (c0mrad3) from comment #12)
> > 
> > 
> > > > * Package version
> > > >   - Please use proper version scheme. The package version should be 
> > > > probably
> > > > just "0.1.0" while the release should be "0.1.dev".
> > > >   - The versioning is documented in detail here [2].
> > > I upstream had it versioning like that
> > > https://github.com/asciidoctor/asciidoctor-mallard/blob/master/lib/
> > > asciidoctor-mallard/version.rb
> > > 
> > > but I have updated it to 0.1.dev
> > 
> > Please read the [2] carefully. You have to ensure update path. E.g. the
> > original VR you used was "0.1.0.dev-1". If the upstream released stable
> > version "0.1.0", your VR would become "0.1.0.dev-1" and this is what RPM
> > thinks about the versions:
> > 
> > ```
> > $ rpmdev-vercmp 0.1.0.dev-1 0.1.0-1
> > 0.1.0.dev-1 > 0.1.0-1
> > ```
> > 
> > That means the newer version would never get installed. Hence I suggested to
> > use just "0.1.0" while the release should be "0.1.dev". In the .spec file,
> > it would look like:
> > 
> > ```
> > Version: 0.1.0
> > Release: 0.1.dev%{?dist}
> > ```
> > 
> > Which makes the upgrade path correct:
> > 
> > ```
> > $ rpmdev-vercmp 0.1.0-0.1.dev 0.1.0-1
> > 0.1.0-0.1.dev < 0.1.0-1
> > ```
> > 
> > Again, please read the [2] carefully (although I admit it is not easy read,
> > but hopefully this will get simplified in the future).
> Got it right this time!


Yep, LGTM!

But you still should work on the Source package I mentioned in previous step.
Please study this [1] to get yourself familiar with git snapshots. This is
something I come up with:

```
--- rubygem-asciidoctor-mallard.spec.orig2016-12-05 14:57:16.684010918
+0100
+++ rubygem-asciidoctor-mallard.spec2016-12-06 10:23:44.589045687 +0100
@@ -1,14 +1,26 @@
 %global gem_name asciidoctor-mallard

+%global commit0 cf5a2a8baf8f54f64af4d0f3eac763e1ca47c917
+%global shortcommit0 %(c=%{commit0}; echo ${c:0:7})
+
+%globalprever .dev
+%globalprerpmver %(echo "%{?prever}" | sed -e 's|\\.||g')
+
+# Modify the standard if we are packaging pre-release version.
+%global gem_instdir %{gem_dir}/gems/%{gem_name}-%{version}%{?prever}
+%global gem_cache %{gem_dir}/cache/%{gem_name}-%{version}%{?prever}.gem
+%global gem_spec
%{gem_dir}/specifications/%{gem_name}-%{version}%{?prever}.gemspec
+%global gem_docdir %{gem_dir}/doc/%{gem_name}-%{version}%{?prever}
+
 Name: rubygem-%{gem_name}
 Version: 0.1.0
-Release: 0.1.dev%{?dist}
+Release: %{?prever:0.}1%{?prever:.%{prerpmver}}%{?dist}
 Summary: Converts AsciiDoc documents to Project Mallard format

 Group: Development/Languages
 License: MIT
 URL: https://github.com/asciidoctor/asciidoctor-mallard
-Source0: %{gem_name}-%{version}.gem 
+Source0:
https://github.com/asciidoctor/asciidoctor-mallard/archive/%{commit0}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{shortcommit0}.tar.gz

 BuildArch: noarch
 BuildRequires: ruby
@@ -30,17 +42,20 @@
 Documentation for %{name}

 %prep
-gem unpack %{SOURCE0}
-
-%setup -q -D -T -n  %{gem_name}-%{version}
+%setup -n %{gem_name}-%{commit0}

-gem spec %{SOURCE0} -l --ruby > %{gem_name}.gemspec
+# We don't have git repository, so just collect everything available,
+# except the .gemspec (which is modified by this command and the gem itself.
+sed -i '/s.files/a\
+  s.files = Dir["**/*"] -
["asciidoctor-mallard-#{Asciidoctor::Mallard::VERSION}.gem",
"asciidoctor-mallard.gemspec"]' \
+  asciidoctor-mallard.gemspec

 %build
 # Create the gem as gem install only works on a gem file
 gem build %{gem_name}.gemspec

-%gem_install
+# NOTE: The '-n ...' can be dropped when stable version is available.
+%gem_install -n %{gem_name}-%{version}%{?prever}.gem

 %install
 mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{gem_dir}
@@ -93,8 +108,10 @@

 %files doc
 %{gem_docdir}
+%{gem_instdir}/Gemfile
 %{gem_instdir}/README.adoc
 %{gem_instdir}/Rakefile
+%{gem_instdir}/WORKLOG.adoc
 %{gem_instdir}/test

 %changelog
```


> > 
> > > > * Test suite
> > > >   - Well, the line you used is just part of the story. You can see that 
> > > > there
> > > > is nothing which would indicated, that the test suite was executed. 
> > > > You
> > > > should use following line:
> > > > 
> > > > ```
> > > > ruby -Ilib -e 'Dir.glob "./test/*_test.rb", (:require)'
> > > > ```
> > > > 
> > > >   - Unfortunately, there seems to be dependency on asciidoctor-doctest, 
> > > > which
> > > > is not in Fedora yet. Since it has quite lot of dependencies, it is
> > > > probably not worth of packaging ATM, but all this should be 
> > > > documented.
> > > >   - Instead of execution of test suite, you should consider 

[Bug 1395244] Review Request: python3-zope-event - Zope Event Publication

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395244

Aurelien Bompard  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(aurelien@bompard. |
   |org)|



--- Comment #2 from Aurelien Bompard  ---
> * fedora-review thinks that COPYRIGHT.txt should be marked as %license, even
> though there's also a LICENSE.txt.

Done, thanks.
Spec URL:
https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python3-zope-event/python3-zope-event.spec
SRPM URL:
https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/python3-zope-event/python3-zope-event-4.2.0-1.el7.centos.src.rpm

> * The package defines srcname and pkgname. It would be cleaner to just use
> one or the other of those two instead of both.

It's actually not the same value, one has a dash and the other a dot.

> * What are the python3_other macros? Are those standard macros, or are they
> used when doing manual builds? I've not seen them before.

They come from this template: 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/EPEL7_Python3
The aim is to support multiple versions of Python3 in EPEL.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1401414] Review Request: python-neovim - Python client to Neovim

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414



--- Comment #10 from Andreas Schneider  ---
Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python-neovim/python-neovim.spec
SRPM URL:
https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/python-neovim/python-neovim-0.1.12-2.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 1401414] Review Request: python-neovim - Python client to Neovim

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401414



--- Comment #9 from Andreas Schneider  ---
Co-maintaining is much appreciated.

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