date:20161212

[Bug 1369708] Review Request: tpm2-tss - TPM2.0 Software Stack

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #63 from Yunying Sun  ---
> > Questions left:
> > 1. > N/A*%check is present and all tests pass.
> > Is the %check section a MUST?
> 
> it's a SHOULD
> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/
> Guidelines#Test_Suites), I would say if it's technically possible to run the
> test-suite, then it makes sense to run even during the build, it can be a
> slightly different environment than upstream uses (eg. stricter compiler
> flags) or it can test all architectures (not this case)
While in case of this package, Wei Gang suggested "unit tests should not be
added into the build process of distro package", mainly due to:
1. Unit test code in upstream TPM2.0-TSS is not well organized yet, they are
still working to add more formal unit test cases and make unit tests runnable
during build process.
2. Currently, the unit test code is only intended to help developer addressing
wrong changes to the code, and the formal released upstream code should have
already been tested well.

So I'd prefer not adding %check this time, if that's ok from you. Possibly I
can add it later when unit test has been verified to be working well during
build process for upstream.

> > 2. koji build always fail with certification failure(re-fetched cert through
> > fedora-packager-setup for couple of times but error remains same), and COPR
> > build is still pending after being submitted for over 2 hours. Is there
> > something wrong known with Koji & COPR build servers today?
> 
> koji switched to kerberos based authentication today, please see
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.
> fedoraproject.org/message/JK267PSDD53I2KGONDLFA5D4JWYXKZTQ/ for details
Thanks for the info. Just managed to start koji build and it succeeds:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16862199

The COPR build also completed successfully:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/yunyings/tpm2-tss/build/487392/

Please help to review again. Thanks a lot.

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

[Bug 1382850] Review Request: libtoml - Fast C parser using Ragel to generate the state machine

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382850



--- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/libtoml.spec
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/libtoml-0-1.20161213git03e8a3a.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 1402540] Review Request: git-fame - Pretty-print git repository collaborators sorted by contributions

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402540



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
git-fame-1.2.0-1.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-2016-8fd51877c2

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

[Bug 1402540] Review Request: git-fame - Pretty-print git repository collaborators sorted by contributions

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402540

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
git-fame-1.2.0-1.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-a20a6ee060

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

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #4 from Devin Henderson  ---
Thank you Dhanesh and Michael! I will read through your notes and links and see
if I can come up with a better spec file.

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

[Bug 1393947] Review Request: cinch - A tool for provisioning Jenkins components for CI

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #5 from greg.helli...@gmail.com ---
New SRPM:
https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/cinch/cinch-0.2.1-2.fc25.src.rpm

I added the %license line
I switched python-devel to python2-devel instead

I'm guessing that's what you were meaning when you called out python-devel? It
does need a Python development package in order to install.

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

[Bug 1403417] Review Request: gsequencer - audio processing engine

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403417



--- Comment #7 from Joël Krähemann  ---
Hi

Just updated gsequencer.spec and have taken a look at the review. About certain
points I'm unsure.



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



Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
  in the spec URL.
  Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
  /home/jkraehemann/1403417-gsequencer/diff.txt
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[?]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[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 (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
 generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "FSF Unlimited GPL", "*No copyright*
 FSF All Permissive", "FSF All Permissive", "FSF Unlimited". 146 files
 have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/jkraehemann/1403417-gsequencer/licensecheck.txt
[?]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gtk-doc,
 /usr/share/xml
[?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/doc/libags-doc
 (gsequencer-devel-doc, gsequencer-devel-docs), /usr/share/doc/libags-
 audio-doc(gsequencer-devel-doc, gsequencer-devel-docs), /usr/share/doc
 /libags-audio-doc/api(gsequencer-devel-doc, gsequencer-devel-docs),
 /usr/share/doc/libags-gui-doc/api(gsequencer-devel-doc, gsequencer-
 devel-docs), /usr/share/doc/libags-doc/api(gsequencer-devel-doc,
 gsequencer-devel-docs), /usr/share/doc/libags-gui-doc(gsequencer-
 devel-doc, gsequencer-devel-docs), /usr/share/gtk-doc/html(harfbuzz-
 devel, gtk-doc)
[?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[?]: 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.
[x]: 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 153600 bytes in 3 files.
[?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages

[Bug 1402164] Review Request: pydf - Fully colorized df clone written in python

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt  ---
> I have made as little changes to the original rpms as possible.

Why that? What changes would you have liked to make?


> Summary:Fully colorized df clone written in python

s/python/Python/


> %install
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections


> install -p pydf   $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_bindir}
> install -p pydfrc $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}
> install -p pydf.1 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man1

These commands are the obvious place where to use the -m argument to set the
mode of the files.


> gzip -9nf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man1/pydf.1 README

rpm-builds compresses manual pages on-the-fly, choosing whatever compression
technique is configured on the build machine. Don't compress the file manually.

And compressing the 1992 bytes small README into a renamed file README.gz
serves no purpose. It doesn't even save a KiB.


> %clean
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections


> %defattr(644,root,root,755)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_Permissions


> %doc README.gz INSTALL COPYING

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


> %attr(755,root,root) %{_bindir}/pydf

If installed correctly during %install (either via an upstream Makefile or
manually with the "install" command), it would not be necessary to fiddle with
%attr here.  Sure, using %attr works, but imagine you need to maintain a larger
package with many more files. Overusing %attr reduces readability a lot. You
want to reduce the usage to really special permission/owner change scenarios.


> %{_mandir}/man1/pydf.1.gz

As above. The following would be able to handle uncompressed man pages as well
as system-wide rpmbuild configuration changes:

  %{_mandir}/man1/pydf.1*

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

[Bug 1382850] Review Request: libtoml - Fast C parser using Ragel to generate the state machine

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382850



--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt  ---
> Release:1git%{shortcommit}%{?dist}

Does not follow the versioning guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Snapshot_packages


> %package devel

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package


> %{_libdir}/%{name}.so.*

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries

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

[Bug 1404044] Review Request: brooklyn - model, deploy, manage application

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404044

Michael Schwendt  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)



--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt  ---
As per:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Create_Your_Review_Request


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 1401302] Review Request: libarcus - Communication library between internal components for Ultimaker software

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401302



--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt  ---
> %description
> Arcus library contains C++ code and Python 3 bindings

Then you will need "BuildRequires: gcc-c++" as per this year's changes to the
buildroots to make them cleaner.


> %packagedevel
> Summary:Development files for libarcus
> Requires:   %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

It's supposed to be an arch-specific dependency for a long time:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package


> %files devel
> %doc examples/example.cpp examples/example.proto
> %{_libdir}/libArcus.so
> %{_libdir}/cmake/Arcus

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_directory_is_owned_by_a_package_which_is_not_required_for_your_package_to_function

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

[Bug 1397051] Review Request: caffeine - High performance java 8 caching library

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1397051



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
caffeine-2.3.5-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1401276] Review Request: python-grako - Python grammer compiler

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401276



--- Comment #4 from Eric Smith  ---
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/python-grako/python-grako.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/python-grako/python-grako-3.18.0-2.fc24.src.rpm

Good catch! I've added the Requires for python3-graphviz, added a "mkdir tmp"
so diagram_test passes, and added the examples directory as doc.

Your example of drawing to out.txt doesn't work; try out.pdf instead.

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

[Bug 1404044] New: Review Request: brooklyn - model, deploy, manage application

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404044

Bug ID: 1404044
   Summary: Review Request: brooklyn - model, deploy, manage
application
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: bos...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://github.com/bostko/brooklyn_fedorapkg/blob/master/brooklyn.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/bostko/brooklyn_fedorapkg/releases/download/0.10.0-rc2/brooklyn-0.10.0-0.src.rpm

Description: DevOps all in one.

model:
Blueprints describe your application, stored as text files in version control
Compose from the dozens of supported components or your own components using
bash, 
JBoss • Cassandra • nginx • many more

deploy:
Components configured & integrated across multiple machines automatically
20+ public clouds, or your private cloud or bare servers - and Docker
containers
Amazon EC2 • CloudStack • OpenStack • SoftLayer

manage:
Monitor key application metrics; scale to meet demand; restart and replace
failed components

View and modify using the web console or automate using the REST API

Fedora Account System Username: bos...@gmail.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 1404043] Review Request: rdma-core - RDMA core userspace libraries and daemons

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404043



--- Comment #1 from Jarod Wilson  ---
There isn't an upstream rdma-core release just yet, so the tarball was
generated using:

$ git archive --prefix rdma-core-12/ --output
~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/rdma-core-12.tgz HEAD

A release corresponding to kernel 4.9 is expected soon, I believe.

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

[Bug 1404043] New: Review Request: rdma-core - RDMA core userspace libraries and daemons

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404043

Bug ID: 1404043
   Summary: Review Request: rdma-core - RDMA core userspace
libraries and daemons
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ja...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~jwilson/pkgreview/rdma-core/rdma-core.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/~jwilson/pkgreview/rdma-core/rdma-core-12-1.fc26.src.rpm

Description: 
This is the userspace components for the Linux Kernel's drivers/infiniband
subsystem. Specifically this contains the userspace libraries for the following
device nodes:

/dev/infiniband/uverbsX (libibverbs)
/dev/infiniband/rdma_cm (librdmacm)
/dev/infiniband/umadX (libibumad)
/dev/infiniband/ucmX (libibcm, deprecated)
The userspace component of the libibverbs RDMA kernel drivers are included
under the providers/ directory. Support for the following Kernel RDMA drivers
is included:

iw_cxgb3.ko
iw_cxgb4.ko
hfi1.ko
hns-roce.ko
i40iw.ko
ib_qib.ko
mlx4_ib.ko
mlx5_ib.ko
ib_mthca.ko
iw_nes.ko
ocrdma.ko
qedr.ko
rdma_rxe.ko
Additional service daemons are provided for:

srp_daemon (ib_srp.ko)
iwpmd (for iwarp kernel providers)

Fedora Account System Username: jwilson

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

[Bug 1396232] Review Request: libkeepalive - Enable TCP keepalive in dynamic binaries

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

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

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||psut...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(psut...@redhat.co
   ||m)



--- Comment #6 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
any plans to request package in PkgDB? ;)

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

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

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
quassel-irssi-0-2.20161120gitcbd9bd7.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7
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 1402456] Review Request: python3-idna - Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402456

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 1402456] Review Request: python3-idna - Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402456



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-idna-2.1-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-940fb9734f

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

[Bug 1402456] Review Request: python3-idna - Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402456



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-idna-2.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-3faec4c6db

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

[Bug 1398949] Review Request: bear - Game engine and editors dedicated to creating great 2D games

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398949



--- Comment #20 from Jeremy Newton  ---
(In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #19)
> (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #18)
> 
> > Well any libraries needed for run-time should be placed into the main
> > package, and any libraries or header/source files needed for build time
> > should be placed into the devel package. (you may have to install the devel
> > headers manually).
> > 
> > The unversioned libraries should realistically be fixed upstream IMHO.
> > plee-the-bear and asgp should just BuildRequire the bear-engine-devel
> > package and build without requiring two SOURCE tarballs.
> 
> Well put. The packages in this review are not setup like this, and they'd
> need to be adjusted to have the .so files in the main package (they're all
> needed at runtime).
> 
> Once these packages are fixed, I can see how much work it will be to rewire
> plee-the-bear to use them instead of its own bundled copy of bear.

Sounds good.

@MartinKG

You should be able to just manually copy all the needed devel files like so:

install -D cmake-helper/bear-config.cmake
%{buildroot}%{_includedir}/%{name}/cmake-helper/
for file in $(find bear-engine/{core,lib}/src -name *.hpp);
do
install -D $file %{buildroot}%{_includedir}/%{name}/$file
done

Make a devel subpackage (bear-devel) for these files, and all the lib's should
move back to the respective engine or factory packages.

In asgp/plee-the-bear, all you need to do is remove bear, add bear-devel as a
build require, and then add the following cmake parameter:
-DBEAR_ROOT_DIRECTORY=%{_includedir}/bear

I'm not 100% sure if this will work, so please test this.

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

[Bug 1404012] New: Review Request: module-build-service - The Module Build Service for Modularity

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404012

Bug ID: 1404012
   Summary: Review Request: module-build-service - The Module
Build Service for Modularity
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: rb...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org




Spec URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//module-build-service.spec
SRPM URL:
http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//module-build-service-1.0.1-1.fc25.src.rpm

Description:
The orchestrator coordinates module builds and is responsible for a number of
tasks:

- Providing an interface for module client-side tooling via which module build
  submission and build state queries are possible.
- Verifying the input data (modulemd, RPM SPEC files and others) is available
  and correct.
- Preparing the build environment in the supported build systems, such as koji.
- Scheduling and building of the module components and tracking the build
  state.
- Emitting bus messages about all state changes so that other infrastructure
  services can pick up the work.

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

[Bug 1404012] Review Request: module-build-service - The Module Build Service for Modularity

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404012



--- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16857938

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

[Bug 1397842] Review Request: python-cccolutils - Python Kerberos Credential Cache Collection Utilities

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1397842



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-cccolutils-1.5-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-0137e43188

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

[Bug 1402540] Review Request: git-fame - Pretty-print git repository collaborators sorted by contributions

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402540



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
git-fame-1.2.0-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a20a6ee060

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

[Bug 1402540] Review Request: git-fame - Pretty-print git repository collaborators sorted by contributions

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402540



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
git-fame-1.2.0-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8fd51877c2

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

[Bug 1402540] Review Request: git-fame - Pretty-print git repository collaborators sorted by contributions

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402540

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1402540] Review Request: git-fame - Pretty-print git repository collaborators sorted by contributions

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402540



--- Comment #8 from Raphael Groner  ---
Please fix (again) while importing:

- Please use License: MPLv2.0

- Remove unneeded Requires: python3-setuptools

- I think also the package has to explicitly 'Require: git' as said to provide
  a proper function.

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

[Bug 1398949] Review Request: bear - Game engine and editors dedicated to creating great 2D games

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398949



--- Comment #19 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
(In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #18)

> Well any libraries needed for run-time should be placed into the main
> package, and any libraries or header/source files needed for build time
> should be placed into the devel package. (you may have to install the devel
> headers manually).
> 
> The unversioned libraries should realistically be fixed upstream IMHO.
> plee-the-bear and asgp should just BuildRequire the bear-engine-devel
> package and build without requiring two SOURCE tarballs.

Well put. The packages in this review are not setup like this, and they'd need
to be adjusted to have the .so files in the main package (they're all needed at
runtime).

Once these packages are fixed, I can see how much work it will be to rewire
plee-the-bear to use them instead of its own bundled copy of bear.

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

[Bug 1387669] Review Request: kio-gdrive - KDE Dolphin Google Drive access

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387669



--- Comment #9 from Vasiliy Glazov  ---
Oh, sorry, I am not able to be a sponsor. I have not enough experience for it.

May be Rex will sponsor.

But I make review of your package.

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 30 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/vascom/1387669-kio-gdrive/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
 desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only 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 kio-
 gdrive-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include

[Bug 1382755] Review Request: legion - A data-centric parallel programming system

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1382755

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||anto.tra...@gmail.com
  Flags||needinfo?(fedora@besser82.i
   ||o)



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

[Bug 1398949] Review Request: bear - Game engine and editors dedicated to creating great 2D games

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398949



--- Comment #18 from Jeremy Newton  ---
(In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #17)
> (In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #16)
> > Do you have another package (besides plee-the-bear) that depends on the bear
> > library?
> 
> Replying to myself, I see that andy-super-great-park does. I guess the
> question is whether it is simpler to separate this out like this, or have
> plee-the-bear spit out a library package (bear-libs & bear-libs-devel).

I would say split it out, but it's up to you how you want to do it. I figure it
would be cleaner, and we'll have one source per package.

I made some comments upstream, but packaging the private libraries should be ok
for now:
https://github.com/j-jorge/plee-the-bear/issues/5

We can just install the headers manually for now. I'm assuming agsp and
plee-the-bear just need headers from bear.

(In reply to MartinKG from comment #15)
> (In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #14)
> > Package Review
> > ==
> > 
> > Legend:
> > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> > [ ] = Manual review needed
> > 
> > 
> > Issues:
> > ===
> > - gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
> >   contains icons.
> >   Note: icons in bear-factory
> >   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
> > - update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package
> >   contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
> >   Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in bear-factory
> >   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-
> >   database
> > 
> 
> done
> 
> > = MUST items =
> > 
> > C/C++:
> > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
> > [x]: Package contains no static executables.
> > [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> >  Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
> >  attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
> > > See additional comments below
> 
> done, created subpkg devel

Well any libraries needed for run-time should be placed into the main package,
and any libraries or header/source files needed for build time should be placed
into the devel package. (you may have to install the devel headers manually).

The unversioned libraries should realistically be fixed upstream IMHO.
plee-the-bear and asgp should just BuildRequire the bear-engine-devel package
and build without requiring two SOURCE tarballs.

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

[Bug 1398949] Review Request: bear - Game engine and editors dedicated to creating great 2D games

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398949



--- Comment #17 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
(In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #16)
> Do you have another package (besides plee-the-bear) that depends on the bear
> library?

Replying to myself, I see that andy-super-great-park does. I guess the question
is whether it is simpler to separate this out like this, or have plee-the-bear
spit out a library package (bear-libs & bear-libs-devel).

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

[Bug 1398949] Review Request: bear - Game engine and editors dedicated to creating great 2D games

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398949

Tom "spot" Callaway  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tcall...@redhat.com



--- Comment #16 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
Do you have another package (besides plee-the-bear) that depends on the bear
library?

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

[Bug 1401334] Review Request: python-utils - Python Utils is a module with some convenient utilities

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401334

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #8 from Randy Barlow  ---
I'm going to go ahead and pass your current package. I recommend updating to
2.0.1 and including that license file, but I don't believe that is required to
pass the review since the setup.py does state that the package is BSD.

Very clean spec file, nice work!


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
 randy: Upstream now has a license file that should be included in the
next release.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Cannot run licensecheck: Command 'licensecheck -r /var/lib/mock
 /fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/python-utils-2.0.0'
 returned non-zero exit status 255
 randy: The license is expressed only in the setup.py as "BSD".
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 921600 bytes in 39 files.
 randy: It's close to 1 MB, but I think it's OK ☺
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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.
 randy: Miro got upstream to do this, so it's OK.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
 randy: There is a 2.0.1 that has the license file. It would be

[Bug 1312303] Review Request: perl-Net-LDAP-Server-Test - Test Net:: LDAP code

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1312303



--- Comment #5 from Ralf Corsepius  ---
Spec URL:
https://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Net-LDAP-Server-Test.spec
SRPM URL:
https://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/perl-Net-LDAP-Server-Test-0.21-2.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 1401334] Review Request: python-utils - Python Utils is a module with some convenient utilities

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401334



--- Comment #7 from Randy Barlow  ---
Miro, it looks like upstream made a 2.0.1 release that has the license file.
You might want to package that one instead.

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

[Bug 1401276] Review Request: python-grako - Python grammer compiler

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401276



--- Comment #3 from Iryna Shcherbina  ---
Thank you for the changes.

(In reply to Eric Smith from comment #2)
> The reason for the for loop that changes the shebang and perms for only one
> file:
> 1) copied from another spec file that works - if it ain't broke don't fix it
> 2) future upstream releases might have more files that need this treatment
> 
> If you feel strongly about removing the for loop, let me know and I'll take
> it out.

Thanks for the explanation. You can keep it as is for future use if needed.

One more thing, the documentation [0] lists a couple of optional dependencies
which are handled silently if not installed. However pygraphviz seems to be
required if you use a `--draw` option, as it raises an error if not installed:

# grako antlr.ebnf --draw --outfile=out.txt
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/bin/grako", line 9, in 
load_entry_point('grako==3.18.0', 'console_scripts', 'grako')()
  File "/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/grako/tool.py", line 182, in main
from grako import diagrams
  File "/usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/grako/diagrams.py", line 10, in

import pygraphviz as pgv
ImportError: No module named 'pygraphviz'

Is there a reason not to require it?

Apart from the above question, everything looks good.

[0]
https://bitbucket.org/apalala/grako/annotate/411da520bac9dd730a49ce39d651a3f5c7936be1/README.md?at=default=file-view-default#README.md-48

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

[Bug 1401334] Review Request: python-utils - Python Utils is a module with some convenient utilities

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401334



--- Comment #6 from Randy Barlow  ---
Thanks Miro, upstream responded quickly! Also I hadn't noticed the BSD in the
setup.py. Since that is there, I think we can proceed and you can add the
license file whenever upstream makes a release with it.

Igor, I had thought it was a bit of a permanent failure since we needed
upstream to do something, but it turned out I was wrong!

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

[Bug 1387669] Review Request: kio-gdrive - KDE Dolphin Google Drive access

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387669



--- Comment #8 from Wolnei Junior  ---
Full review attach to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1037427

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

[Bug 1403381] Review Request: microdnf - Micro DNF

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403381



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

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

[Bug 1037427] Review Request: kdeneur - KDE frontend for X Neural Switcher (xneur)

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1037427



--- Comment #5 from Wolnei Junior  ---
After run fedora-review tool:

[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
 Note: Could not download Source0: https://launchpad.net/~andrew-crew-
 kuznetsov/+archive/xneur-stable/+files/kdeneur_0.19.0.orig.tar.gz
 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags

[!]: %check is not present.

Full results in: https://wolnei.fedorapeople.org/rpm/kdeneur/review.txt

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

[Bug 1403381] Review Request: microdnf - Micro DNF

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403381

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Neal Gompa  ---
Looks good to me.

PACKAGE APPROVED.

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

[Bug 1403381] Review Request: microdnf - Micro DNF

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403381



--- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/microdnf.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/microdnf-1-1.fc26.src.rpm

Jason, Neal,
* IMO 0.X makes sense when Version != 0
* gitdate is completely useless (even is mandated guidelines)

Given that I just released v1 in upstream to not have long and pointless
discussion 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 1403417] Review Request: gsequencer - audio processing engine

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403417

Michael Schwendt  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||bugs.mich...@gmx.net



--- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt  ---
Well, for reasons unknown you've missed half of the issues pointed out before.
Your spec %changelog doesn't mention the changes either.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs

Maybe as one way forward you could acknowledge the issues that have been
pointed out? Or run "fedora-review -b 1403417" yourself as it finds more issues
due to some of the checks it is good at.

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

[Bug 1386774] Review Request: kf5-libktorrent - Library providing torrent downloading code

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1386774

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(rdie...@math.unl. |
   |edu)|



--- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter  ---
Spec URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ktorrent/kf5-libktorrent.spec
SRPM URL:
https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/ktorrent/kf5-libktorrent-2.0.1-5.fc24.src.rpm

%changelog
* Mon Dec 12 2016 Rex Dieter  - 2.0.1-5
- Requires: kf5-filesystem
- update URL
- %%license COPYING

License: GPLv2+ is the "effective" license (and unchanged), this is what "BSD
and MITand GPLv2+" combines to,
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F

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

[Bug 1398949] Review Request: bear - Game engine and editors dedicated to creating great 2D games

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398949



--- Comment #15 from MartinKG  ---
(In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #14)
> Package Review
> ==
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> 
> Issues:
> ===
> - gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
>   contains icons.
>   Note: icons in bear-factory
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
> - update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package
>   contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry.
>   Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in bear-factory
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-
>   database
> 

done

> = MUST items =
> 
> C/C++:
> [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
> [x]: Package contains no static executables.
> [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
>  Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
>  attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
> > See additional comments below

done, created subpkg devel

> 
> [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
> [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
> 
> Generic:
> [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
>  other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
>  Guidelines.
> [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>  Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>  found: "BSD (2 clause)", "BSD (2 clause) MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2
>  or later)", "*No copyright* CC by-sa (v3.0)", "Unknown or generated".
>  1903 files have unknown license.
> > The glew code is what's causing it to pick up BSD. I believe this code
> > SHOULD be removed in prep to make sure it's not compiled or included in
> > the debug package. This is more of a SHOULD than a MUST though.
> 
done

> [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> > This is due to a missing require, see "Requires correct" comment to fix it
> 
> [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
>  must be documented in the spec.
> [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>  Note: Directories without known owners:
>  /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps,
>  /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps,
>  /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps,
>  /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps, /usr/share/cmake,
>  /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/lib64/bear,
>  /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps,
>  /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64,
>  /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32,
>  /usr/share/icons/hicolor
> [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
>  Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/bear-factory/item-
>  description/generic/link(plee-the-bear), /usr/share/bear-factory/item-
>  description/generic/system(plee-the-bear), /usr/share/bear-
>  factory/images(plee-the-bear), /usr/share/bear-factory/item-
>  description/generic/expr(plee-the-bear), /usr/share/bear-factory/item-
>  description/generic/forced_movement(plee-the-bear), /usr/share/bear-
>  factory/item-description/generic/script(plee-the-bear), /usr/share
>  /bear-factory/item-description(plee-the-bear), /usr/share/bear-factory
>  /item-description/generic(plee-the-bear), /usr/share/bear-factory
>  /item-description/generic/level_variable(plee-the-bear), /usr/share
>  /bear-factory/item-description/generic/item_brick(plee-the-bear),
>  /usr/share/bear-factory/item-description/generic/game_variable(plee-
>  the-bear), /usr/share/bear-factory(plee-the-bear), /usr/share/bear-
>  factory/item-description/generic/shader(plee-the-bear)
> > See additional comments below

done
> 
> [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
> [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> [x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
> [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
> [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
> [-]: 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.
> [!]: Package does not generate any conflict.
>  Note: Package contains Conflicts: tag(s) needing fix or justification.
> > See additional comments below
> 
> [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
> [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
>  Provides

[Bug 1403734] Review Request: perl-Sub-Quote - Efficient generation of subroutines via string eval

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403734

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Sub-Quote-2.003001-1.f
   ||c26
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-12-12 10:01:29



--- Comment #3 from Jitka Plesnikova  ---
Thank you for the review and the repository.

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

[Bug 1403734] Review Request: perl-Sub-Quote - Efficient generation of subroutines via string eval

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403734



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

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

[Bug 1402540] Review Request: git-fame - Pretty-print git repository collaborators sorted by contributions

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402540



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

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

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #33 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/lollypop

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

[Bug 1402456] Review Request: python3-idna - Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1402456



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python3-idna

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

[Bug 1401337] Review Request: python-zeroconf - Pure Python Multicast DNS Service Discovery Library

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401337



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

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

[Bug 1393796] Review Request: golang-github-go-errors-error - Package errors provides errors that have stack-traces

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393796



--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/golang-github-go-errors-error

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

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

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|ERRATA  |---
   Keywords||Reopened



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
yosys-0.7-1.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-d4d3573847

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

[Bug 1403734] Review Request: perl-Sub-Quote - Efficient generation of subroutines via string eval

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403734

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar  ---
URL and Source0 are usable. Ok.
Source archive is original (SHA-256:
9d471d8e13e7ce4793d5a5ec04a60fface14dd53be78dd94d228871915cfd1f9). Ok.
Summary is Ok.
Description is Ok.
License verified from README, lib/Sub/Quote.pm. Ok.

TODO: I think the code should not build- and run-require both Sub::Name and
Sub::Util modules. I think both are optional and Sub::Name will not be used if
Sub::Util is available.

FIX: This package should conflict with perl-Moo < 2.003000 because the modules
and manual pages were provided with perl-Moo previously.

All tests pass. Ok.

$ rpmlint perl-Sub-Quote.spec ../SRPMS/perl-Sub-Quote-2.003001-1.fc26.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Sub-Quote-2.003001-1.fc26.noarch.rpm 
perl-Sub-Quote.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) eval -> veal, vela, val
perl-Sub-Quote.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US performant ->
perform ant, perform-ant, performance
perl-Sub-Quote.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) eval -> veal, vela, val
perl-Sub-Quote.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US performant ->
perform ant, perform-ant, performance
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.

$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Sub-Quote-2.003001-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Dec 12 13:56
/usr/share/doc/perl-Sub-Quote
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot  242 Dec  9 09:20
/usr/share/doc/perl-Sub-Quote/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 6740 Dec  9 09:20
/usr/share/doc/perl-Sub-Quote/README
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2040 Dec 12 13:56
/usr/share/man/man3/Sub::Defer.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 4133 Dec 12 13:56
/usr/share/man/man3/Sub::Quote.3pm.gz
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Dec 12 13:56
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Sub
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 6230 Dec  9 09:20
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Sub/Defer.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot13507 Dec  9 09:20
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Sub/Quote.pm
File layout and permissions are Ok.

$ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Sub-Quote-2.003001-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
| sort -f | uniq -c
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.0)
  1 perl(B)
  1 perl(Carp)
  1 perl(Exporter)
  1 perl(Scalar::Util)
  1 perl(strict)
  1 perl(Sub::Defer)
  1 perl(Sub::Name) >= 0.08
  1 perl(Sub::Util)
  1 perl(warnings)
  1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
Binary requires are Ok.
TODO: Do not run-require both perl(Sub::Name) and perl(Sub::Util).

$ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Sub-Quote-2.003001-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
| sort -f | uniq -c
  1 perl(Sub::Defer) = 2.003001
  1 perl(Sub::Quote) = 2.003001
  1 perl-Sub-Quote = 2.003001-1.fc26
Binary provides are Ok.

Package builds in F26
(https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16852699). Ok.

Otherwise the package in in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines.

Please correct all `FIX' items and consider fixing `TODO' items before building
this package.
Resolution: Package APPROVED.

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

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

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-zope-event-4.2.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-2d276b670c

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

[Bug 1403734] Review Request: perl-Sub-Quote - Efficient generation of subroutines via string eval

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403734

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||ppi...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@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 1302744] Review Request: python-resumable-urlretrieve - Small library to fetch files over HTTP and resuming their download

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #6 from Mathieu Bridon  ---
Port is now randomized in the latest upstream release, here's the new package.

Spec URL:
https://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-resumable-urlretrieve.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/python-resumable-urlretrieve-0.1.3-1.fc24.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1369708] Review Request: tpm2-tss - TPM2.0 Software Stack

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #62 from Dan Horák  ---
(In reply to Yunying Sun from comment #61)
> (In reply to Dan Horák from comment #60)
> > formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below:
> > ...
> > So almost good, but please answer my question (and/or prepare a new
> > iteration) before I'll approve the package.
> 
> Thanks for the formal review and comments, Dan. I've updated SPEC & SRPM
> after fixing most issues you listed.
> 
> Updated SPEC:
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yunyings/share/master/tpm2-tss.spec
> Updated SRPM:
> https://github.com/yunyings/share/blob/master/tpm2-tss-1.0-2.el7.src.
> rpm?raw=true
> COPR build(not yet finished):
> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/yunyings/tpm2-tss/build/487392/

thanks, will check them later today

> 
> > - a test directory is present in the source archive, can it be used (with
> > --enable-unit)? If it isn't used, then pkgconfig(cmocka) can be removed from
> > BR I suppose.
> Confirmed with upstream developer(Gang Wei) that test source code is not
> suggested to add into distro package, because "the software should be well
> tested before a formal upstream releasing, and the unit test code are just
> intended to help developer addressing wrong changes to the code." So no
> change for this.
> 
> Questions left:
> 1. > N/A*%check is present and all tests pass.
> Is the %check section a MUST?

it's a SHOULD
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Test_Suites),
I would say if it's technically possible to run the test-suite, then it makes
sense to run even during the build, it can be a slightly different environment
than upstream uses (eg. stricter compiler flags) or it can test all
architectures (not this case)

> 2. koji build always fail with certification failure(re-fetched cert through
> fedora-packager-setup for couple of times but error remains same), and COPR
> build is still pending after being submitted for over 2 hours. Is there
> something wrong known with Koji & COPR build servers today?

koji switched to kerberos based authentication today, please see
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/JK267PSDD53I2KGONDLFA5D4JWYXKZTQ/
for details

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

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #61 from Yunying Sun  ---
(In reply to Dan Horák from comment #60)
> formal review is here, see the notes explaining OK* and BAD statuses below:
> ...
> So almost good, but please answer my question (and/or prepare a new
> iteration) before I'll approve the package.

Thanks for the formal review and comments, Dan. I've updated SPEC & SRPM after
fixing most issues you listed.

Updated SPEC:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yunyings/share/master/tpm2-tss.spec
Updated SRPM:
https://github.com/yunyings/share/blob/master/tpm2-tss-1.0-2.el7.src.rpm?raw=true
COPR build(not yet finished):
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/yunyings/tpm2-tss/build/487392/

> - a test directory is present in the source archive, can it be used (with
> --enable-unit)? If it isn't used, then pkgconfig(cmocka) can be removed from
> BR I suppose.
Confirmed with upstream developer(Gang Wei) that test source code is not
suggested to add into distro package, because "the software should be well
tested before a formal upstream releasing, and the unit test code are just
intended to help developer addressing wrong changes to the code." So no change
for this.

Questions left:
1. > N/A*%check is present and all tests pass.
Is the %check section a MUST?

2. koji build always fail with certification failure(re-fetched cert through
fedora-packager-setup for couple of times but error remains same), and COPR
build is still pending after being submitted for over 2 hours. Is there
something wrong known with Koji & COPR build servers today?

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

[Bug 1403734] New: Review Request: perl-Sub-Quote - Efficient generation of subroutines via string eval

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403734

Bug ID: 1403734
   Summary: Review Request: perl-Sub-Quote - Efficient generation
of subroutines via string eval
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jples...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-Sub-Quote/perl-Sub-Quote.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-Sub-Quote/perl-Sub-Quote-2.003001-1.fc26.src.rpm
Description:
This package provides performant ways to generate subroutines from strings.


Fedora Account System Username: jples...@redhat.com

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

[Bug 1403724] New: Review Request: php-justinrainbow-json-schema4 - A library to validate a json schema

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403724

Bug ID: 1403724
   Summary: Review Request: php-justinrainbow-json-schema4 - A
library to validate a json schema
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/remicollet/remirepo/14229b9d2e4b8b3c2a81174fbfa7db4fcf8f40fa/php/php-justinrainbow-json-schema4/php-justinrainbow-json-schema4.spec
SRPM URL:
http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-justinrainbow-json-schema4-4.0.1-1.remi.src.rpm
Description: 
A PHP Implementation for validating JSON Structures against a given Schema.

This package provides the library version 4 and the validate-json command.
The php-JsonSchema package provides the library version 1.
The php-justinrainbow-json-schema package provides the library version 2.

See http://json-schema.org/

Autoloader: /usr/share/php/JsonSchema4/autoload.php


Fedora Account System Username: remi

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

[Bug 1312303] Review Request: perl-Net-LDAP-Server-Test - Test Net:: LDAP code

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1312303



--- Comment #4 from Jitka Plesnikova  ---
Source file is ok
Summary is ok
License is ok
Description is ok
URL and Source0 are ok
All tests passed

$ rpm -qp --requires perl-Net-LDAP-Server-Test-0.21-1.fc26.noarch.rpm | sort |
uniq -c
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.0)
  1 perl(Carp)
  1 perl(Convert::ASN1)
  1 perl(Data::Dump)
  1 perl(IO::Select)
  1 perl(IO::Socket)
  1 perl(Net::LDAP::ASN)
  1 perl(Net::LDAP::Constant)
  1 perl(Net::LDAP::Control)
  1 perl(Net::LDAP::Entry)
  1 perl(Net::LDAP::Filter)
  1 perl(Net::LDAP::FilterMatch)
  1 perl(Net::LDAP::SID)
  1 perl(Net::LDAP::Server)
  1 perl(Net::LDAP::Util)
  1 perl(base)
  1 perl(constant)
  1 perl(fields)
  1 perl(strict)
  1 perl(warnings)
  1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
Binary requires are Ok.

$ rpm -qp --provides perl-Net-LDAP-Server-Test-0.21-1.fc26.noarch.rpm | sort |
uniq -c
  1 perl(Net::LDAP::Server::Test) = 0.21
  1 perl-Net-LDAP-Server-Test = 0.21-1.fc26
Binary provides are Ok.

$ rpmlint ./perl-Net-LDAP-Server-Test*
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint is ok

FIX: Please add following build-requires:
   perl(File::Temp) - t/06-no-such-entry.t:10, t/07-error-codes.t:10
   perl(Net::LDAP::LDIF) - t/06-no-such-entry.t:9, t/06-no-such-entry.t:9
   perl(IO::Socket::INET) - t/03-socket.t:10

FIX: The latest version is 0.22. There is no code change. 

TODO: Please replace PERL_INSTALL_ROOT with more common DESTDIR.

Please correct all 'FIX' issues and consider fixing 'TODO' items and
provide new spec file.

Not approved.

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

[Bug 1387669] Review Request: kio-gdrive - KDE Dolphin Google Drive access

2016-12-12 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387669



--- Comment #7 from Vasiliy Glazov  ---
I am think that "make review request" mean that you need make full review (with
run and check fedora-review) with actual package and responsive packager.

And if you update SPEC and Srpm URL you not need add "V2", just write it like
in first post.

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

66 matches

Mail list logo