[Bug 1404217] Review Request: php-pecl-dio - Direct I/O functions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404217

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #6 from Remi Collet  ---
Thanks for the fast review.

New package requested on 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 1404577] New: Review Request: php-fig-http-message-util - PSR Http Message Util

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404577

Bug ID: 1404577
   Summary: Review Request:  php-fig-http-message-util - PSR Http
Message Util
   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/ca309a938514bf3c71fbade5e675391ded0d37d7/php/php-fig-http-message-util/php-fig-http-message-util.spec
SRPM URL:
http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-fig-http-message-util-1.1.0-1.remi.src.rpm
Description: 
This library holds utility classes and constants to facilitate common
operations of PSR-7; the primary purpose is to provide constants for
referring to request methods, response status codes and messages, and
potentially common headers.

Autoloader: /usr/share/php/Fig/Http/Message/autoload.php

Fedora Account System Username: remi

--

New dependency of php-zendframework-zend-expressive-router (1.3)
As usually I will clean the EL-5 stuff during import.

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-idna-2.1-1.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-2016-940fb9734f

-- 
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)

[bugzilla]

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-idna-2.1-1.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-2016-3faec4c6db

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

[bugzilla]

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-cccolutils-1.5-1.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-2016-0137e43188

-- 
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 1397775] Review Request: fontsquirrel-crete-round-fonts - General purpose warm slab serif font

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1397775

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---

Package Review
==

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


Suggestions:
1) Add fonts appstream metainfo file for gnome-software before import of this
package

= 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: "SIL (v1.1)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/parag/1397775
 -fontsquirrel-crete-round-fonts/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless 

[Bug 1404421] Container Review Request: kubernetes - containers for kubernetes master and node packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404421



--- Comment #9 from Jason Brooks  ---
(In reply to Michael Scherer from comment #6)
> Other than this, they do look ok, even if I do not have enough knowledge
> regarding the kubernetes parameters to see if the scripts are correct. I
> also wonder if the proxy image shouldn't get more documention on how to run
> it (IIRC? it is supposed to forward various ports around, so we need to use
> -p, no ?)

I've been adapting the ansible scripts from kubernetes/contrib to use these
packages. I'm working in this fork:
https://github.com/jasonbrooks/contrib/tree/atomic-update

I found that I needed to add the -p 443 for the apiserver component, and the
proxy component didn't need a similar change to work with these ansible
scripts, but the scripts do handle firewall configuration.

I've worked through some steps to run the node portion with package layering
and the master parts in containers in this gist:
https://gist.github.com/jasonbrooks/f1aa092e63edce5272451c5845f72750. I could
look into what other changes might be needed to make that ansibleless method
work with the kubelet and proxy in containers, too.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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 #65 from Yunying Sun  ---
Thanks Dan, really appreciate the approval and sponsoring. 

I've created the new package request. "fedpkg clone" currently fails with error
"Could not read from remote repository". Will try again once package request is
approved.

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

[Bug 1397775] Review Request: fontsquirrel-crete-round-fonts - General purpose warm slab serif font

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1397775



--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
oh I just realized I had picked this for review but did not post a review.
Doing it now. Sorry for delay.

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

[Bug 1404421] Container Review Request: kubernetes - containers for kubernetes master and node packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404421



--- Comment #8 from Jason Brooks  ---
(In reply to Michael Scherer from comment #5)
> Also the same for iptables and
> https://github.com/jasonbrooks/k8s-images/blob/fedpkg/proxy/Dockerfile

iptables is already pulled in by kubernetes-node, so I removed it from the
Dockerfile.

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

[Bug 1404421] Container Review Request: kubernetes - containers for kubernetes master and node packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404421



--- Comment #7 from Jason Brooks  ---
(In reply to Michael Scherer from comment #4)
> Ok so:
> - why does kubelet install utils-linux ?
> 
> (
> https://github.com/jasonbrooks/k8s-images/blob/fedpkg/kubelet/Dockerfile#L11
> )
> the script do not seems to use it, and so, if kubelet use it,maybe the deps
> should be in the rpm ?

The kubelet, when containerized, needs nsenter, which is provided by
utils-linux.

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

[Bug 1404465] Review Request: git-archive-all - Archive git repository with its submodules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404465

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Alias|git-archive-all |
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa  ---
This spec is quite simple, and the package builds and runs. It follows our
guidelines for Python application packaging.

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 1404465] Review Request: git-archive-all - Archive git repository with its submodules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404465

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

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

[Bug 1401582] Review Request: python-flufl-testing - Small collection of test tool plugins

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401582

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Neal Gompa  ---
Everything 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 1401582] Review Request: python-flufl-testing - Small collection of test tool plugins

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401582



--- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa  ---
Package Review
==

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



= 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache", "Unknown or
 generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/makerpm/1401582-python-flufl-
 testing/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/flufl(python3-flufl-bounce, python3-flufl-i18n, python3
 -flufl-lock)
[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 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: 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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, 

[Bug 1387518] Review Request: python-lazr-config - Create configuration schemas, and process and validate configurations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387518

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa  ---
The warnings thrown by rpmlint are easily ignorable.

Everything else looks good.

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 1387518] Review Request: python-lazr-config - Create configuration schemas, and process and validate configurations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387518



--- Comment #5 from Neal Gompa  ---
Package Review
==

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



= 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: "*No copyright* LGPL (v3)", "LGPL (v3)", "Unknown or
 generated". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/makerpm/1387518-python-lazr-
 config/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/python2.7/site-
 packages/lazr(python2-lazr-delegates), /usr/lib/python3.5/site-
 packages/lazr(python3-lazr-delegates)
[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.
[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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 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]: 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 applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2
 -lazr-config , python3-lazr-config
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: Packages should 

[Bug 1404489] New: Review Request: bnfc - Convert labelled BNF grammar to lexer/parser generator files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404489

Bug ID: 1404489
   Summary: Review Request: bnfc - Convert labelled BNF grammar to
lexer/parser generator files
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: space...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/bnfc/bnfc.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/bnfc/bnfc-2.8.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: 
  The BNF Converter is a compiler construction tool generating a compiler
front-end from a Labelled BNF grammar. It was originally written to generate
Haskell, but starting from Version 2.0, it can also be used for generating
Java, C++, and C.
  Given a Labelled BNF grammar the tool produces: an abstract syntax as a
HaskellC++C module or Java directory, a case skeleton for the abstract syntax
in the same language, an Alex, JLex, or Flex lexer generator file, a Happy,
CUP, or Bison parser generator file, a pretty-printer as a HaskellJavaC++/C
module, a Latex file containing a readable specification of the language.
Fedora Account System Username: brouhaha

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

[Bug 1387518] Review Request: python-lazr-config - Create configuration schemas, and process and validate configurations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387518



--- Comment #4 from Aurelien Bompard  ---
(BTW I reported the bug here:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/lazr.config/+bug/1649726)

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

[Bug 1387518] Review Request: python-lazr-config - Create configuration schemas, and process and validate configurations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387518



--- Comment #3 from Aurelien Bompard  ---
The code does import from pkg_resources which is provided by setuptools. The
"setuptools" and "nose" are listed in the "install_requires" section in
setup.py, so it seems logical to propagate this dependency in the RPM. I agree
that nose does not seem necessary at runtime (by grepping the code) but then
that's an upstream bug, I'm not sure I should patch the setup.py downstream in
Fedora for that 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 1401582] Review Request: python-flufl-testing - Small collection of test tool plugins

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401582



--- Comment #3 from Aurelien Bompard  ---
Good catch, I've removed it from the runtime requirements, thanks.

Spec URL:
https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/flufl.testing/python-flufl-testing.spec
SRPM URL:
https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/flufl.testing/python-flufl-testing-0.4-1.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 1391951] Review Request: php-cs-fixer - A tool to automatically fix PHP code style

[bugzilla]

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2016-12-03 21:25:06 |2016-12-13 17:53:15



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-cs-fixer-2.0.0-1.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 1403417] Review Request: gsequencer - audio processing engine

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt  ---
> - 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

This means the source tarball included in your src.rpm does not match the
tarball as offered on your upstream download page.


> [?]: 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.

This refers to %{_libdir}/gsequencer/libgsequencer.so* and if it's truely a
private path not visible to the runtime linker by default, there can't be any
conflict with a system library using the same name.


> [?]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.

This means: If you install any subpackage, does it depend on other packages
that include the %license text? For example, gsequencer-devel with its explicit
base "Requires" would pull in the gsequencer package.


> [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>  Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gtk-doc,
> /usr/share/xml

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


> [?]: 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)

Same as above. And you may have to remove old build results from your Mock
buildroot.


> [?]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.

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

If reading build.log (or compiler output during build stage), does the build
pick up the global compiler flags: see "rpm -E %optflags"


> [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.

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


> [?]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
>  names).

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


> [?]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.

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


> [?]: Package does not generate any conflict.

A tough one to check. If not installing files with too generic file names into
common paths, such as %_bindir or %_libdir, the risk of causing conflicts is
low. In case of doubt, one may query the remote repos with "dnf" or "repoquery"
to see whether any other packages provide files with the same path.


> [?]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.

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


> [?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.

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


> [?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.

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


> [?]: 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.

This guideline is about splitting off "large or huge documentation". See Review
Guidelines and 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation


> [?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

The tough catch-all.


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

No issue. License terms are included. It refers to:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Licensing


> [?]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).

This about the RPM Requires and Provides in the built packages. One can query
them, examine them and/or test them.


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

The -debuginfo package is generated automatically by rpmbuild. The -doc
subpackages usually don't need to depend on the base package if the
documentation can be viewed with an arbitrary file viewer. It would be a

[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



--- Comment #3 from Guido Aulisi  ---
*** This is an unofficial review. ***

I checked and filled all the MUST items created by fedora-review.

I also made a successful scratch koji build,
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16854659

I report the (minor) issues I found by inspecting the SPEC file again, I think
they should be corrected:

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}

This is the new review report

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.
[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: "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
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{namMITe}.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
 pcb2gcode-debuginfo
[ ]: Package functions as 

[Bug 1397089] Review Request: dnscrypt-proxy-gui - GUI wrapper for dnscrypt-proxy

[bugzilla]

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

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

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #24 from greg.helli...@gmail.com ---
It also looks like it's been resolved now. Hearing no other objections to
approval.

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

[Bug 1404421] Container Review Request: kubernetes - containers for kubernetes master and node packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404421



--- Comment #6 from Michael Scherer  ---
Other than this, they do look ok, even if I do not have enough knowledge
regarding the kubernetes parameters to see if the scripts are correct. I also
wonder if the proxy image shouldn't get more documention on how to run it
(IIRC? it is supposed to forward various ports around, so we need to use -p, no
?)

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

[Bug 1404465] Review Request: git-archive-all - Archive git repository with its submodules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404465

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Alias||git-archive-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 1404465] New: Review Request: git-archive-all - Archive git repository with its submodules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404465

Bug ID: 1404465
   Summary: Review Request: git-archive-all - Archive git
repository with its submodules
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ignate...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/git-archive-all.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/git-archive-all-1.15-1.fc26.src.rpm
Description: Archive git repository with its submodules.
Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain

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

[Bug 1404421] Container Review Request: kubernetes - containers for kubernetes master and node packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404421



--- Comment #5 from Michael Scherer  ---
Also the same for iptables and
https://github.com/jasonbrooks/k8s-images/blob/fedpkg/proxy/Dockerfile

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

[Bug 1404421] Container Review Request: kubernetes - containers for kubernetes master and node packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404421



--- Comment #4 from Michael Scherer  ---
Ok so:
- why does kubelet install utils-linux ?

( https://github.com/jasonbrooks/k8s-images/blob/fedpkg/kubelet/Dockerfile#L11
)
the script do not seems to use it, and so, if kubelet use it,maybe the deps
should be in the 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 1387518] Review Request: python-lazr-config - Create configuration schemas, and process and validate configurations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387518



--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa  ---
Are you sure that python-setuptools and python-nose need to be runtime
requirements? I don't see anything that indicates they should be.

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

[Bug 1404421] Container Review Request: kubernetes - containers for kubernetes master and node packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404421



--- Comment #3 from Jason Brooks  ---
(In reply to Michael Scherer from comment #2)
> Ok, so the master seems to be good.
> 
> There is the required labels, there is no extra code. 
> 
> I just have reservation regarding Maintainer, but that's not in the
> guideline for now.

I can put myself in there as the maintainer, if that's better.

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

[Bug 1404421] Container Review Request: kubernetes - containers for kubernetes master and node packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404421



--- Comment #2 from Michael Scherer  ---
Ok, so the master seems to be good.

There is the required labels, there is no extra code. 

I just have reservation regarding Maintainer, but that's not in the guideline
for now.

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

[Bug 1401582] Review Request: python-flufl-testing - Small collection of test tool plugins

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401582



--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa  ---
Why does this package require python-setuptools? I don't see any obvious reason
for it to, based on the source code and the setup.py data...

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #6 from Eric Smith  ---
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/python-grako/python-grako.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/python-grako/python-grako-3.18.0-3.fc24.src.rpm

I apologize for wasting your time! From my shell history, I see that I built
3.18.0-2 locally, but then ran rpmlint and koji with -1.  :-(

- Fix dependency on python3-pygraphviz, and move into subpackage.
- Fix shebang lines of examples.
- Clean examples after check.

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

[Bug 1404421] Container Review Request: kubernetes - containers for kubernetes master and node packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404421

Michael Scherer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||m...@zarb.org
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer  ---
So, I am wondering if the review should cover all of them at once, or if we
should them one by one. Fedora rpm do them one by one, and that's likely easier
to follow with 1 bug, 1 review and 1 container.

But that's also subpackage of the same source so I guess there is some reason.

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

[Bug 1403030] Review Request: hdfview - Java HDF5 Object viewer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403030



--- Comment #10 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
(In reply to Jos de Kloe from comment #9)
> Here is a first attempt to review your package.
> Main issue is that I get an error when I try to load a file in hdfview.
> Also, the complaints about directory ownership should be adressed I think.
> Finally, it would be nice if you could remove some of the rpmlint errors,
> which seem mostly caused by empty txt files. Do they really need to be empty?

Thank you for the review!

> ===
> Manually added issue:
> - hdfview gives an " Unsupported fileformat" error when I try to
>   open an example file from the samples directory
Hm, any specific file, or all of them? They all work for me, so maybe it's a
question of dependencies? I now see that the binary packages have no version
dependency on jhdf5. I'll add that.

> Issues generated by fedora-review
> - Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
>   Note: No javadoc subpackage present
>   See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
> - Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
>   subpackage
>   Note: No javadoc subpackage present. Note: Javadocs are optional for
>   Fedora versions >= 21
>   See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
Right. There's no javadoc. It's optional and I didn't think it'd be
particularly useful, but I'll generate it and check again.

Update: javadocs look useful. I added a javadoc subpackage.

> - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
>   Note: Jar files in source (see attachment)
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre-
>   built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software'
This is already fixed in the new srpm.

> = 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.
>  present in BUILD/hdfview-2.13.0-Source/COPYING
> [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>  Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/mime,
>  /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/mime/packages
> ==>actually I don't really know how this should be solved,
>the packaging guidelines are clear enough: the directories you
>create must be owned by this package, or by one of its dependencies
>in the "natural dependency chain" or by the filesystem, man, or
>other explicitly created -filesystem packages.
>Is this the case for these directories?
>If so, please add some comment to detail this.
> [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
>  Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
>  /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/mimetypes(hicolor-icon-theme,
>  keepassx), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22(hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-
>  logos, keepassx), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps(hicolor-icon-
>  theme, fedora-logos), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps(qmmp,
>  hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos, keepassx),
>  /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps(qmmp, hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-
>  logos, keepassx), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/mimetypes(hicolor-
>  icon-theme), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16(qmmp, hicolor-icon-theme,
>  fedora-logos, keepassx), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48(qmmp, hicolor-
>  icon-theme, fedora-logos, keepassx, nedit),
>  /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps(qmmp, hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-
>  logos, keepassx, nedit), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/mimetypes
>  (hicolor-icon-theme, keepassx), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32(qmmp,
>  hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos, keepassx),
>  /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/mimetypes(hicolor-icon-theme, keepassx)

Fixed. I added R:hicolor-icon-theme.

> ==>same comment as above
> [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> [x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
> [-]: 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]: update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package
>  contains desktop file(s) with 

[Bug 1404217] Review Request: php-pecl-dio - Direct I/O functions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404217

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Neal Gompa  ---
The rpmlint warnings on spelling and lack of documentation are reasonable to
ignore (not really spelling errors and there's no docs to include).

The unversioned so files make sense given that it's a PHP extension, so its
exported ABI would be nonsense anyway.

The spec generally looks sane 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 1404217] Review Request: php-pecl-dio - Direct I/O functions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404217



--- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
 Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
 upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
 licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in php-
 pecl-dio-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary 

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

[bugzilla]

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

Tom "spot" Callaway  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #3 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
Lifting FE-Legal, since as Kevin notes, the Hershey license is okay for Fedora.


Referenced Bugs:

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #26 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
plee-the-bear-0.7.0-10 (now building in rawhide) removes all the conflicts. I
think that is sufficient for bear to proceed, though, it would be nice to be
able to use a consistent system copy of bear for all the apps.

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

[Bug 1404434] New: Container Review Request: calc - Arbitrary-precision arithmetic system and calculator — in a container!

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404434

Bug ID: 1404434
   Summary: Container Review Request: calc - Arbitrary-precision
arithmetic system and calculator — in a container!
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: mat...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Dockerfile: https://mattdm.org/misc/fedora/dockerfiles/calc/Dockerfile
Description: Arbitrary-precision arithmetic system and calculator — in a
container!
Fedora Account System Username: mattdm

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

[Bug 1387250] Review Request: python-lazr-smtptest - Test framework for SMTP-based applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387250

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-12-13 15:27:04



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-lazr-smtptest-2.0.3-1.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 1404421] New: Container Review Request: kubernetes - containers for kubernetes master and node packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404421

Bug ID: 1404421
   Summary: Container Review Request: kubernetes - containers for
kubernetes master and node packages
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jbro...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Dockerfile(s) URL: https://github.com/jasonbrooks/k8s-images/tree/fedpkg
Description: Kubernetes containers for fedora, based originally on
https://github.com/fedora-cloud/Fedora-Dockerfiles/pull/112
Fedora Account System Username: jasonbrooks

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #25 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
(In reply to Jeremy Newton from comment #24)

> Hmmm, that is problematic. I assume plee-the-bear git head also fails?
> 
> For the time being you'll need to bundle it, but can you rework
> plee-the-bear to use another folder instead of %{_datadir}/bear-factory?
> That way we can avoid conflicts with this package, as I assuming upstream
> will eventually update plee to work with this.

Yeah, that was the first thing I checked, but upstream hasn't touched
plee-the-bear git in over a year.

I think it won't be too hard to avoid conflicts, since plee-the-bear really
only uses %{_datadir}/bear-factory/plee-the-bear/. I've got a local build going
that removes the other files from %{_datadir}/bear-factory/* just to make sure.
If that succeeds, I'll push it to rawhide (and other targets as needed).

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #24 from Jeremy Newton  ---
(In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #23)
> Okay, I've been poking at this today. A few comments:
> 
> * You'll need to scoop up all the .tpp files as well, same logic as the .hpp
> files.
> * The version of bear that you're using is newer and incompatible with the
> current version of plee-the-bear.
> 
> Now, I know that the upstream for bear is the same as the upstream for
> plee-the-bear, would you be willing to ask if he plans to update
> plee-the-bear to be compatible with git head for bear?
> 
> The only other path forward here (other than extensive patching of
> plee-the-bear) is for plee-the-bear to use its bundled copy in a way that
> doesn't conflict with your bear package.

Hmmm, that is problematic. I assume plee-the-bear git head also fails?

For the time being you'll need to bundle it, but can you rework plee-the-bear
to use another folder instead of %{_datadir}/bear-factory? That way we can
avoid conflicts with this package, as I assuming upstream will eventually
update plee to work with 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 1403030] Review Request: hdfview - Java HDF5 Object viewer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403030



--- Comment #9 from Jos de Kloe  ---
Here is a first attempt to review your package.
Main issue is that I get an error when I try to load a file in hdfview.
Also, the complaints about directory ownership should be adressed I think.
Finally, it would be nice if you could remove some of the rpmlint errors, which
seem mostly caused by empty txt files. Do they really need to be empty?

Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
Manually added issue:
- hdfview gives an " Unsupported fileformat" error when I try to
  open an example file from the samples directory

Issues generated by fedora-review
- Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
  Note: No javadoc subpackage present
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
- Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
  subpackage
  Note: No javadoc subpackage present. Note: Javadocs are optional for
  Fedora versions >= 21
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
- Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
  Note: Jar files in source (see attachment)
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre-
  built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software'


= 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.
 present in BUILD/hdfview-2.13.0-Source/COPYING
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/mime,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/mime/packages
==>actually I don't really know how this should be solved,
   the packaging guidelines are clear enough: the directories you
   create must be owned by this package, or by one of its dependencies
   in the "natural dependency chain" or by the filesystem, man, or
   other explicitly created -filesystem packages.
   Is this the case for these directories?
   If so, please add some comment to detail this.
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/mimetypes(hicolor-icon-theme,
 keepassx), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22(hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-
 logos, keepassx), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps(hicolor-icon-
 theme, fedora-logos), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps(qmmp,
 hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos, keepassx),
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps(qmmp, hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-
 logos, keepassx), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/mimetypes(hicolor-
 icon-theme), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16(qmmp, hicolor-icon-theme,
 fedora-logos, keepassx), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48(qmmp, hicolor-
 icon-theme, fedora-logos, keepassx, nedit),
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps(qmmp, hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-
 logos, keepassx, nedit), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/mimetypes
 (hicolor-icon-theme, keepassx), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32(qmmp,
 hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos, keepassx),
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/mimetypes(hicolor-icon-theme, keepassx)
==>same comment as above
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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]: 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 hdfview
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
 contains icons.
 Note: icons in hdfview
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least

[Bug 1346038] Review Request: python-blivet1 - python2/ blivet-1.x compatibility package

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346038

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1346038] Review Request: python-blivet1 - python2/ blivet-1.x compatibility package

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346038



--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-blivet1-1.20.3-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3b1c84ea90

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #23 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
Okay, I've been poking at this today. A few comments:

* You'll need to scoop up all the .tpp files as well, same logic as the .hpp
files.
* The version of bear that you're using is newer and incompatible with the
current version of plee-the-bear.

Now, I know that the upstream for bear is the same as the upstream for
plee-the-bear, would you be willing to ask if he plans to update plee-the-bear
to be compatible with git head for bear?

The only other path forward here (other than extensive patching of
plee-the-bear) is for plee-the-bear to use its bundled copy in a way that
doesn't conflict with your bear package.

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #22 from Jeremy Newton  ---
(In reply to MartinKG from comment #21)
> New bear Package:
> Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/bear.spec
> SRPM URL:
> https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/bear-0.7.0-0.5gitac6be8b.fc25.
> src.rpm
> 
> %changelog
> * Tue Dec 13 2016 Martin Gansser  -
> 0.7.0-0.5gitac6be8b
> - Dropped subpkg engine/factory-devel because unversioned files needed at
> runtime
> - Add subpkg %%{name}-devel

To fix asgp, change:
> install -D cmake-helper/bear-config.cmake 
> %{buildroot}%{_includedir}/%{name}/cmake-helper/

into

> install -D cmake-helper/*.cmake 
> %{buildroot}%{_includedir}/%{name}/cmake-helper/

(Does install allow wildcards?)
As all of these cmake files seem to be required.

As well, the following is incorrect:
> %files devel
> %{_includedir}/%{name}/*

should be
> %files devel
> %{_includedir}/%{name}

That way the devel package owns this folder (omitting %dir is recursive).

Furthermore, some cleanup suggestions:
-The following
> %dir %{_libdir}/%{name}
> %{_libdir}/%{name}/lib%{name}*.so
> %exclude %{_libdir}/%{name}/lib%{name}-editor.so

can be changed to:
> %{_libdir}/%{name}
> %exclude %{_libdir}/%{name}/lib%{name}-editor.so

As this should be functionally the same

- The following:
> %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}-factory/
> %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}-factory/images/
> %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}-factory/item-description/
> %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}-factory/item-description/generic
> %{_datadir}/%{name}-factory/images/
> %{_datadir}/%{name}-factory/item-description/

can be changed to:
> %{_datadir}/%{name}-factory

As "factory" owns everything in %{_datadir}/%{name}-factory anyway.

Side note, the following should probably be moved to devel as well:
> %{_datadir}/cmake/%{name}-engine

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

[Bug 1176273] Review Request: andy-super-great-park - 2D arcade game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176273



--- Comment #21 from Jeremy Newton  ---
(In reply to MartinKG from comment #20)
> I have only uploaded the spec file due my thin internet bandwidth.
> Spec URL:
> https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/asgp-1.0.18/test2/asgp.spec
> 
> there's a problem with asgp/CMakeLists.txt see below:
> 
> + /usr/bin/cmake -DCMAKE_C_FLAGS_RELEASE:STRING=-DNDEBUG
> -DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS_RELEASE:STRING=-DNDEBUG
> -DCMAKE_Fortran_FLAGS_RELEASE:STRING=-DNDEBUG
> -DCMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE:BOOL=ON -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX:PATH=/usr
> -DINCLUDE_INSTALL_DIR:PATH=/usr/include -DLIB_INSTALL_DIR:PATH=/usr/lib64
> -DSYSCONF_INSTALL_DIR:PATH=/etc -DSHARE_INSTALL_PREFIX:PATH=/usr/share
> -DLIB_SUFFIX=64 -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS:BOOL=ON
> -DBEAR_ENGINE_INSTALL_LIBRARY_DIR=lib64/bear -DBEAR_EDITORS_ENABLED=OFF
> -DRP_INSTALL_CUSTOM_LIBRARY_DIR=lib64/bear
> -DBEAR_ROOT_DIRECTORY=/usr/include/bear -DRP_INSTALL_DATA_DIR=share/asgp
> -DRP_BEAR_FACTORY_ENABLED=ON
> -- The C compiler identification is GNU 6.2.1
> -- The CXX compiler identification is GNU 6.2.1
> -- Check for working C compiler: /usr/bin/cc
> -- Check for working C compiler: /usr/bin/cc -- works
> -- Detecting C compiler ABI info
> -- Detecting C compiler ABI info - done
> -- Detecting C compile features
> -- Detecting C compile features - done
> -- Check for working CXX compiler: /usr/bin/c++
> -- Check for working CXX compiler: /usr/bin/c++ -- works
> -- Detecting CXX compiler ABI info
> -- Detecting CXX compiler ABI info - done
> -- Detecting CXX compile features
> -- Detecting CXX compile features - done
> CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:9 (include):
>   include could not find load file:
> 
> uninstall
> 
> 
> CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:11 (subdirs):
>   subdirs Incorrect SUBDIRS command.  Directory: bear does not exist.
> 
> 
> CMake Error at asgp/CMakeLists.txt:19 (include):
>   include could not find load file:
> 
> gettext
> 
> 
> CMake Error at asgp/CMakeLists.txt:20 (include):
>   include could not find load file:
> 
> compiler-defaults
> 
> 
> CMake Error at asgp/CMakeLists.txt:21 (include):
>   include could not find load file:
> 
> docbook-to-man
> 
> 
> CMake Error at asgp/CMakeLists.txt:58 (include):
>   include could not find load file:
> 
> FindSDL2
> 
> 
> CMake Error at asgp/CMakeLists.txt:61 (message):
>   SDL2 library must be installed.
> 
> 
> -- Configuring incomplete, errors occurred!

Indeed, this is due to missing files cmake files in the bear-devel package,
I'll post a fix over there.

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

[Bug 1176273] Review Request: andy-super-great-park - 2D arcade game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176273



--- Comment #20 from MartinKG  ---
I have only uploaded the spec file due my thin internet bandwidth.
Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/asgp-1.0.18/test2/asgp.spec

there's a problem with asgp/CMakeLists.txt see below:

+ /usr/bin/cmake -DCMAKE_C_FLAGS_RELEASE:STRING=-DNDEBUG
-DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS_RELEASE:STRING=-DNDEBUG
-DCMAKE_Fortran_FLAGS_RELEASE:STRING=-DNDEBUG -DCMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE:BOOL=ON
-DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX:PATH=/usr -DINCLUDE_INSTALL_DIR:PATH=/usr/include
-DLIB_INSTALL_DIR:PATH=/usr/lib64 -DSYSCONF_INSTALL_DIR:PATH=/etc
-DSHARE_INSTALL_PREFIX:PATH=/usr/share -DLIB_SUFFIX=64
-DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS:BOOL=ON -DBEAR_ENGINE_INSTALL_LIBRARY_DIR=lib64/bear
-DBEAR_EDITORS_ENABLED=OFF -DRP_INSTALL_CUSTOM_LIBRARY_DIR=lib64/bear
-DBEAR_ROOT_DIRECTORY=/usr/include/bear -DRP_INSTALL_DATA_DIR=share/asgp
-DRP_BEAR_FACTORY_ENABLED=ON
-- The C compiler identification is GNU 6.2.1
-- The CXX compiler identification is GNU 6.2.1
-- Check for working C compiler: /usr/bin/cc
-- Check for working C compiler: /usr/bin/cc -- works
-- Detecting C compiler ABI info
-- Detecting C compiler ABI info - done
-- Detecting C compile features
-- Detecting C compile features - done
-- Check for working CXX compiler: /usr/bin/c++
-- Check for working CXX compiler: /usr/bin/c++ -- works
-- Detecting CXX compiler ABI info
-- Detecting CXX compiler ABI info - done
-- Detecting CXX compile features
-- Detecting CXX compile features - done
CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:9 (include):
  include could not find load file:

uninstall


CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:11 (subdirs):
  subdirs Incorrect SUBDIRS command.  Directory: bear does not exist.


CMake Error at asgp/CMakeLists.txt:19 (include):
  include could not find load file:

gettext


CMake Error at asgp/CMakeLists.txt:20 (include):
  include could not find load file:

compiler-defaults


CMake Error at asgp/CMakeLists.txt:21 (include):
  include could not find load file:

docbook-to-man


CMake Error at asgp/CMakeLists.txt:58 (include):
  include could not find load file:

FindSDL2


CMake Error at asgp/CMakeLists.txt:61 (message):
  SDL2 library must be installed.


-- Configuring incomplete, errors occurred!

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

[Bug 1387518] Review Request: python-lazr-config - Create configuration schemas, and process and validate configurations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387518

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

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

[Bug 1401582] Review Request: python-flufl-testing - Small collection of test tool plugins

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401582

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #21 from MartinKG  ---
New bear Package:
Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/bear.spec
SRPM URL:
https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/bear-0.7.0-0.5gitac6be8b.fc25.src.rpm

%changelog
* Tue Dec 13 2016 Martin Gansser  -
0.7.0-0.5gitac6be8b
- Dropped subpkg engine/factory-devel because unversioned files needed at
runtime
- Add subpkg %%{name}-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 1403030] Review Request: hdfview - Java HDF5 Object viewer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403030

Jos de Kloe  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|josdek...@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 1404012] Review Request: module-build-service - The Module Build Service for Modularity

[bugzilla]

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

Miroslav Suchý  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||msu...@redhat.com



--- Comment #2 from Miroslav Suchý  ---
Preliminary review:
* you are missing systemd snippets
 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets?rd=Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd
* it is shame that you start with python2 when everything is being moved to
python3 :(  (but it does not block the review)
* there are test in tar.gz, but not used in %check. Any reason for that?
* it would be nice to have man pages for /usr/bin/* tools

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

[Bug 1403030] Review Request: hdfview - Java HDF5 Object viewer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403030



--- Comment #8 from Jos de Kloe  ---
thanks a lot, the build runs fine now using the fedora-review command.
Give me some time to fill the review template.

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

[Bug 1050744] Review Request: belle-sip - Linphone SIP stack

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050744

Tom "spot" Callaway  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Attachment|0   |1
#1184318 is||
   obsolete||



--- Comment #52 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
Created attachment 1231249
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1231249=edit
use result->d_name

Good catch. I didn't take the NAME_MAX stuff out because it feels like that
could be done in a separate patch, as it is less tied to the readdir_r bugfix
and more of a cleanup.

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

[Bug 1404305] New: Review Request: bcc - BPF Compiler Collection

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404305

Bug ID: 1404305
   Summary: Review Request: bcc - BPF Compiler Collection
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: rdoss...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/~rdossant/bcc.spec

SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~rdossant/bcc-0.2.0-1.fc25.src.rpm

Description: BCC is a toolkit for creating efficient kernel tracing and
manipulation programs, and includes several useful tools and examples. It makes
use of extended BPF (Berkeley Packet Filters), formally known as eBPF, a new
feature that was first added to Linux 3.15. BCC makes BPF programs easier to
write, with kernel instrumentation in C (and includes a C wrapper around LLVM),
and front-ends in Python and lua. It is suited for many tasks, including
performance analysis and network traffic control. 

Fedora Account System Username: rdossant

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

[Bug 1369720] Review Request: tpm2-tools - a TPM2.0 testing tool build upon TPM2.0-TSS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369720

Dan Horák  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||d...@danny.cz
 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@danny.cz
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #20 from Dan Horák  ---
Taking for review.


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

[bugzilla]

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

Dan Horák  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 1369708] Review Request: tpm2-tss - TPM2.0 Software Stack

[bugzilla]

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

Dan Horák  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #64 from Dan Horák  ---
I'm fine with skipping the test-suite for now, all my other comments were
accepted (or explained), this package is APPROVED. I'm going to you into the
"packager" group, please follow with the next step in package inclusion
process. If you have any additional question, don't hesitate to ask.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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-errors - Package errors provides errors that have stack-traces

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/golang-github-go-errors-errors

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-Net-LDAP-Server-Test

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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-errors - Package errors provides errors that have stack-traces

[bugzilla]

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

Gianluca Sforna  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
   |golang-github-go-errors-err |golang-github-go-errors-err
   |or - Package errors |ors - Package errors
   |provides errors that have   |provides errors that have
   |stack-traces|stack-traces



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

[bugzilla]

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

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #6 from Jitka Plesnikova  ---
> 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
+BuildRequires:  perl(File::Temp)
+BuildRequires:  perl(IO::Socket::INET)
+BuildRequires:  perl(Net::LDAP::LDIF)
Ok

> FIX: The latest version is 0.22. There is no code change. 
Please update it before submit.

> TODO: Please replace PERL_INSTALL_ROOT with more common DESTDIR.
-%{__make} pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+%{__make} pure_install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Ok


Otherwise the package looks good.
Approved.

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

[Bug 1396406] Review Request: libebur128 - A library that implements the EBU R 128 standard for loudness normalization

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396406

Sascha Spreitzer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Sascha Spreitzer  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/libebur128
  See:
 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names


= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated".
 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/fedora/1396406-libebur128/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 

[Bug 1396478] Review Request: daala - Daala video compression

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396478

Sascha Spreitzer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #8 from Sascha Spreitzer  ---
Package Review
==

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


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


= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF
 address)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "GPL
 (unversioned/unknown version)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)".
 163 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/fedora/1396478-daala/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in daala-
 libs , daala-devel , daala-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: 

[Bug 1398400] Review Request: superlu_dist - Solution of large, sparse, nonsymmetric systems of linear equations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400



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

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

[Bug 1404217] Review Request: php-pecl-dio - Direct I/O functions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404217



--- Comment #3 from Remi Collet  ---
Updated to 0.0.9: https://git.io/v1P7d

Spec:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/remicollet/remirepo/3b4d7775e6ff551fbe10f618f1bc031a3076492d/php/pecl/php-pecl-dio/php-pecl-dio.spec
Srpm: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-pecl-dio-0.0.9-1.remi.src.rpm

Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16866344

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

[Bug 1404217] Review Request: php-pecl-dio - Direct I/O functions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404217



--- Comment #2 from Remi Collet  ---
Running a scratch build I discover a segfault on bigendian arch (ppc64)

Will update soon with upcoming version 0.0.9
(btw, patch tested, see
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16866221)

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

[Bug 1404217] Review Request: php-pecl-dio - Direct I/O functions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404217

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

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

[Bug 1404217] New: Review Request: php-pecl-dio - Direct I/O functions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404217

Bug ID: 1404217
   Summary: Review Request: php-pecl-dio - Direct I/O functions
   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/2ef23f1d9702ff31bb00b3c5f9140fa9ccdb9151/php/pecl/php-pecl-dio/php-pecl-dio.spec
SRPM URL: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-pecl-dio-0.0.8-2.remi.src.rpm
Description: 
PHP supports the direct io functions as described in the 
Posix Standard (Section 6) for performing I/O functions at 
a lower level than the C-Language stream I/O functions 
(fopen(), fread(),..). 

DIO provides functions and stream wrappers which provide raw and
serial low level IO support.  The use of the DIO functions should 
be considered only when direct control of a device is needed. 
In all other cases, the standard filesystem functions are 
more than adequate.


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 1050744] Review Request: belle-sip - Linphone SIP stack

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050744

Dirk Leber  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||dirk.leber@avionic-design.d
   ||e



--- Comment #51 from Dirk Leber  ---
@Tom "spot" Callaway
Imho that patch won't work as expected.
You are using ent in comparison, but this is not longer set by any function.
Correct should be using result->d_name instead of ent->d_name and you could
drop name_max detection and the ent variable 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 1398400] Review Request: superlu_dist - Solution of large, sparse, nonsymmetric systems of linear equations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400



--- Comment #21 from Dave Love  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #20)
> Use parallel Make if possible.

I should have added a comment that it fails.

Thanks, but I'm largely cut off from Fedora infrastructure after the flag day,
so I don't know when I'll be able to 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 1401276] Review Request: python-grako - Python grammer compiler

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #5 from Iryna Shcherbina  ---
(In reply to Eric Smith from comment #4)
> Your example of drawing to out.txt doesn't work; try out.pdf instead.

You are right, thank you.

> 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.

Please correct python3-graphviz to python3-pygraphviz, an move the `Requires`
into the %package section.

Also, please take a look into the following rpmlint errors after adding
examples.

python3-grako.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/doc/python3-grako/examples/regex/genparser.py /usr/bin/env python
python3-grako.noarch: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/python3-grako/examples/antlr2grako/.ropeproject/globalnames
python3-grako.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/doc/python3-grako/examples/antlr2grako/antlr_parser.py /usr/bin/env
python
python3-grako.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/doc/python3-grako/examples/regex/parser_base.py /usr/bin/env python
python3-grako.noarch: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/python3-grako/examples/antlr2grako/.ropeproject/history
python3-grako.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/share/doc/python3-grako/examples/antlr2grako/antlr2grako.py /usr/env/bin
python
python3-grako.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/doc/python3-grako/examples/antlr2grako/.ropeproject
python3-grako.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/doc/python3-grako/examples/antlr2grako/.ropeproject

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #2 from bos...@gmail.com ---
The request refers to unreleased version which is a problem according to the
Apache Brooklyn community.

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

[bugzilla]

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

bos...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |DEFERRED
Last Closed||2016-12-13 05:35:10



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