[Bug 1467132] Review Request: json-c12 - JSON implementation in C

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467132



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
json-c12-0.12.1-1.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-2017-0124a2f1c4

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

[Bug 1468768] Review Request: domoticz - Open source Home Automation System

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468768



--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/domoticz

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

[Bug 1472679] Review Request: perl-MooX-Locale-TextDomain-OO - Provide API used in translator modules without translating

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472679



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-MooX-Locale-TextDomain-OO

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

[Bug 1464797] Review Request: trezor-common - udev rules and protobuf messages for the hardware wallet TREZOR

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1464797



--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/trezor-common

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

[Bug 1466844] Review Request: modtools - Utilities for creating and managing modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466844



--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/modtools

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

[Bug 1465884] Review Request: golang-github-cznic-lex - Support for (f) lex-like tool on .l source files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465884

Athos Ribeiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
The package looks good!

Approved.

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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-]: %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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: 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]: %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, /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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

= EXTRA items =

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all 

[Bug 1419330] Review Request: deepin-menu - deepin menu service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419330



--- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
The license issue has been resolved upstream in the meanwhile.

Robin, I'll sponsor Bowen Li (the reporter). Can you take 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 1421041] Review Request: deepin-gettext-tools - Deepin Gettext Tools

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421041
Bug 1421041 depends on bug 1469951, which changed state.

Bug 1469951 Summary: Review Request: perl-XML-LibXML-PrettyPrint - Add pleasant 
white space to an XML tree
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469951

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|RAWHIDE |---



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

[Bug 1460917] Review Request: rpkg - Command-line client tool to DistGit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460917



--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
rpkg-client-0.6-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-f281a9ac6d

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

[Bug 1421047] Review Request: deepin-tool-kit - Base development tool of all C++/ Qt Developer work on Deepin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421047

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
+ package name is OK (a bit strange, but that's upstream's choice...)
+ license is acceptable (GPLv3)
+ license is specified correctly
+ BuildRequires/Provides/Requires look correct
+ devel subpackage is split out correctly
+ gcc flags look OK
- scriptlets are missing:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets#Shared_libraries

> Project MESSAGE: This project is using private headers and will therefore be 
> tied to this specific Qt module build version.
> Project MESSAGE: Running this project against other versions of the Qt 
> modules may crash at any arbitrary point.
> Project MESSAGE: This is not a bug, but a result of using Qt internals. You 
> have been warned!

How specific is this requirement on qt version? Should there be a Requires
added with a specific version?

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

[Bug 1465889] Tracking: Deepin Desktop related package review tracker

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465889
Bug 1465889 depends on bug 1469951, which changed state.

Bug 1469951 Summary: Review Request: perl-XML-LibXML-PrettyPrint - Add pleasant 
white space to an XML tree
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469951

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|RAWHIDE |---



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

[Bug 1469951] Review Request: perl-XML-LibXML-PrettyPrint - Add pleasant white space to an XML tree

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469951

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-XML-LibXML-PrettyPrint-0.006-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26
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-2017-ea187703a2

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

[Bug 1470447] Review Request: php-robrichards-xmlseclibs3 - A PHP library for XML Security (version 3)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470447



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-robrichards-xmlseclibs3-3.0.0-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26
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-2017-a8f9253f50

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

[Bug 1413394] Review Request: python-memory_profiler - Module for monitoring memory usage of a python program

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413394



--- Comment #5 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
Hi Igor,

Going through some of my unresolved bugs. Any reason this did not get imported?

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

[Bug 1468949] Review Request: python3-greenlet - Lightweight in-process concurrent programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468949

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1468949] Review Request: python3-greenlet - Lightweight in-process concurrent programming

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468949



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-neovim-0.1.13-3.el7 python3-greenlet-0.4.12-1.el7 has been submitted as
an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-3c792bff32

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

[Bug 1472748] Review Request: perl-Tk-FontDialog - Font dialog widget for perl/Tk

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472748



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-Tk-FontDialog

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

[Bug 1377227] Review Request: golang-github-go-stack-stack - Implements utilities to capture, manipulate, and format call stacks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377227

Athos Ribeiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-07-19 18:58:07



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

[Bug 1376387] Review Request: golang-github-Unknwon-com - Commonly used functions for the Go programming language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376387

Athos Ribeiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-07-19 18:59:17



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

[Bug 1466844] Review Request: modtools - Utilities for creating and managing modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466844



--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been denied with the reason: Could not create 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 1449882] Review Request: python-lcms2 - Simplified Python binding to LittleCMS2 library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1449882

Athos Ribeiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||l...@fedoraproject.org
  Flags||needinfo?(luya@fedoraprojec
   ||t.org)



--- Comment #17 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
Shall we close 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 1419330] Review Request: deepin-menu - deepin menu service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419330

Robin Lee  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|robinlee.s...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #5 from Robin Lee  ---
Please update to the latest version 3.1.5, and I will continue the review.

As mentioned above, the Spec URL and SRPM URL should return raw file.

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

[Bug 1377473] Review Request: golang-github-hashicorp-go-version - Library for parsing and verifying versions and version constraints

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377473

Athos Ribeiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-07-19 18:58:43



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

[Bug 1466013] Review Request: cura-fdm-materials - Cura FDM Material database

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466013



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/cura-fdm-materials

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

[Bug 1472377] Review Request: perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO - Perl Object-oriented Interface to Uniforum Message Translation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472377



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO

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

[Bug 1466523] Review Request: python-blurb - Command-line tool to manage CPython Misc/NEWS.d entries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466523



--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-blurb

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

[Bug 1377229] Review Request: golang-github-inconshreveable-log15 - Structured, composable logging for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377229
Bug 1377229 depends on bug 1377227, which changed state.

Bug 1377227 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-go-stack-stack - Implements 
utilities to capture, manipulate, and format call stacks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377227

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1427341] Review Request: python-gamera - Gamera is a framework for building document analysis applications.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427341



--- Comment #42 from VincentS  ---
So, after all you said. Should I put "GPLv2 and GPLv2+ and MIT and CC-BY-SA" as
package licence and only "CC-BY-SA" as docs subpackage licence ?

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

[Bug 1341662] Review Request: fedora-developer-portal - Offline Fedora Developer Portal

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341662



--- Comment #14 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
> so the only option would be to use master.zip link provided by Github.

That's generally OK, except that you link to an archive for a specific commit
(master is a moving target, and we need things to be reproducible). This should
work:

%global commit b314c8a2ffc643d27da0f6d75981cb784fac8374
%global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
https://github.com/developer-portal/content/archive/%{commit}/fedora-developer-portal-%{shortcommit}.tar.gz

There are guidelines
[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Commit_Revision], but they
are slightly out of date, because github now allows nicer syntax. I'll file an
FPC bug for that.

Oh, another thing: don't use %define
[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define].

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

[Bug 1421065] Review Request: deepin-qt-dbus-factory - A repository stores auto-generated Qt5 dbus code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421065

Robin Lee  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||robinlee.s...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|robinlee.s...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Robin Lee  ---
Please update to the latest version.

And since upstream named 'dde-qt-dbus-factory', this package should follow
that.

And as mentioned in other review, the Spec URL should response the raw text.

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

[Bug 1460458] Review Request: upm - A high level library for sensors and actuators

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460458

Paul Whalen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||pwha...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pwha...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1427341] Review Request: python-gamera - Gamera is a framework for building document analysis applications.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427341

Miro Hrončok  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #41 from Miro Hrončok  ---
I would only use CC-BY-SA for the docs subpackage.

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

[Bug 1427341] Review Request: python-gamera - Gamera is a framework for building document analysis applications.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427341

Charalampos Stratakis  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #40 from Charalampos Stratakis  ---
So since legal hasn't answered for some time now [0] I'm gonna assume that the
correct license(s) should be "GPLv2 and GPLv2+ and MIT and CC-BY-SA", so the
review can be continued.

Miro what would you think?

Also do not forget to add the Requires: wxPython

[0]
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/AB5S7LXEVXWR4VRKYGZO3MXHGFFZJAGO/

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

[Bug 1471885] Review Request: oci-umount - OCI umount hook for docker

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1471885

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
* Why do you need Epoch?
* Missing BuildRequires: gcc
* %configure --libexecdir=/usr/libexec/oci/hooks.d/ -> %configure
--libexecdir=%{_libexecdir}/oci/hooks.d
* make %{?_smp_mflags} -> %make_build
* %{!?_licensedir:%global license %doc} <-- remove this
* %dir /%{_libexecdir}/oci <-- no need for slash, it just makes it unreadable

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

[Bug 1471885] Review Request: oci-umount - OCI umount hook for docker

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1471885

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ignate...@redhat.com



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

[Bug 1471885] Review Request: oci-umount - OCI umount hook for docker

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1471885



--- Comment #1 from Frantisek Kluknavsky  ---
rpmlint ./oci-umount-debuginfo-1.13-101.git7623f6a.fc27.x86_64.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

rpmlint ./oci-umount-1.13-101.git7623f6a.fc27.x86_64.rpm 
oci-umount.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided docker-oci-umount
<= This is intentional. docker-oci-umount was a typo and got released by
mistake. Nothing should depend on it.
oci-umount.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
oci-umount.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
oci-umount.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
<= This is a false positive according to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431408
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

rpmlint ./oci-umount-1.13-101.git7623f6a.fc27.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

rpmlint ./oci-umount.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

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

[Bug 1466523] Review Request: python-blurb - Command-line tool to manage CPython Misc/NEWS.d entries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466523



--- Comment #7 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Thanks

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

[Bug 1471806] Review Request: danmaQ - A small client side Qt program to play danmaku on any screen

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1471806



--- Comment #2 from Zamir SUN  ---
I just realized the release is too long. Updated

Spec URL: https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/danmaQ/danmaQ.spec
SRPM URL:
https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/danmaQ/danmaQ-0-0.1.20170715git.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 1466523] Review Request: python-blurb - Command-line tool to manage CPython Misc/NEWS.d entries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466523



--- Comment #6 from Charalampos Stratakis  ---
[0] https://github.com/python/core-workflow/blob/master/blurb/blurb.py#L753

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

[Bug 1466523] Review Request: python-blurb - Command-line tool to manage CPython Misc/NEWS.d entries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466523

Charalampos Stratakis  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Charalampos Stratakis  ---
The package works.

After making changes at the cpython sources, just running blurb in the
repository will bring up a text editor where you add the issue number from
bugs.python.org, the type of the fix out of some categories, as well as the
Misc/News entry. Saving that will add those changes to the staging area.

Another observation. If the GIT_EDITOR or the EDITOR variables are not set it
will fall back to the nano text editor [0]. I'd argue that it would be better
to fall back to vi (as git does the same), but that could be debated upstream.

Package accepted.

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

[Bug 1466523] Review Request: python-blurb - Command-line tool to manage CPython Misc/NEWS.d entries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466523



--- Comment #4 from Charalampos Stratakis  ---
Doing some testing as well on a local CPython repo before I provide the flag.

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

[Bug 1466523] Review Request: python-blurb - Command-line tool to manage CPython Misc/NEWS.d entries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466523



--- Comment #3 from Charalampos Stratakis  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (3 clause)"
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 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 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.
Note: dist-info is provided here since the package is built as wheel.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: 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]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[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 

[Bug 1466013] Review Request: cura-fdm-materials - Cura FDM Material database

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466013



--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Thanks

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

[Bug 1308488] Review Request: mediaconch - Most relevant technical and tag data for video and audio files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308488

Vitaly Zaitsev  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #15 from Vitaly Zaitsev  ---
Now you need to fix directory ownership and obsoleted m4s. Then I will approve
this 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 1308488] Review Request: mediaconch - Most relevant technical and tag data for video and audio files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308488



--- Comment #14 from Vitaly Zaitsev  ---
Manual checks:

= MUST items =

C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.

Pass.

[ ]: Package contains no static executables.

Pass.

Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.

Pass.

[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MPL (v2.0)", "*No copyright* CC by-sa (v4.0)", "GPL (v3 or
 later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MPL (v2.0)". 446
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/vitaly/1308488-mediaconch/licensecheck.txt

Pass. But some of source files don't contain license preamble. You should ask
upstream to add it.

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

Pass.

[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.

Pass.

[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /etc/mediaconch
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/mediaconch

Fail. Directory ownership /etc/mediaconch can be fixed during import to Fedora
SCM.

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

Pass.

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

Pass.

[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.

Pass.

[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.

Pass.

[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package

Pass.

[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.

Pass.

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

Pass.

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

Pass.

[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.

Pass.

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

Pass.

[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.

Pass.

[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.

Pass.

[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.

Pass.

[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.

Pass.

[ ]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
 contains icons.
 Note: icons in mediaconch-gui

Pass.

[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.

Pass.

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

Pass.

[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 6 files.

Pass.

[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

Pass.

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

[Bug 1308488] Review Request: mediaconch - Most relevant technical and tag data for video and audio files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308488



--- Comment #13 from Vitaly Zaitsev  ---
Automatic check results:

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
- 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 mediaconch-gui
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-
  database


= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MPL (v2.0)", "*No copyright* CC by-sa (v4.0)", "GPL (v3 or
 later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MPL (v2.0)". 446
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/vitaly/1308488-mediaconch/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /etc/mediaconch
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/mediaconch
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
 contains icons.
 Note: icons in mediaconch-gui
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 6 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
 desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid 

[Bug 1472824] package review: rubygem-jekyll-redirect-from

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472824



--- Comment #1 from John Heidemann  ---
Related tickets: #1470699 (update to rubygem-jekyll)
#1470702 (another jekyll extension)
#1310368 (my prior request for jekyll including this module, fortunately
overtaken by someone else's packaging fo it)

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

[Bug 1472824] New: package review: rubygem-jekyll-redirect-from

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472824

Bug ID: 1472824
   Summary: package review: rubygem-jekyll-redirect-from
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jo...@isi.edu
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



SPEC:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/johnh/jekyll/fedora-25-x86_64/00581368-rubygem-jekyll-redirect-from/rubygem-jekyll-redirect-from.spec

SRPM:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/johnh/jekyll/fedora-25-x86_64/00581368-rubygem-jekyll-redirect-from/rubygem-jekyll-redirect-from-0.11.0-1.fc25.src.rpm

This package provides useful functionality for jekyll.

The spec is automatic from the rubygem.

This build is 0.11.0 to work with rubygem-jekyll-3.2, the current package in
Fedora Extras.  The current release 0.12.0 requires jekyll-3.3 and so awaits
upgrade of the parent package.  However, no reason not to start with 0.11.0.

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

[Bug 1377631] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-netspeed - A gnome-shell extension to show speed of the internet

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377631



--- Comment #14 from mgans...@alice.de  ---
Spec URL:
https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/gnome-shell-extension-netspeed.spec
SRPM URL:
https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/gnome-shell-extension-netspeed-3.17-0.8.20170719git0b769d5.fc26.src.rpm

%changelog
* Wed Jul 19 2017 Martin Gansser  -
3.17-0.8.20170719git0b769d5
- Update to recent git version 3.17-0.8.20170719git0b769d5

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

[Bug 1466013] Review Request: cura-fdm-materials - Cura FDM Material database

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466013

Jaroslav Škarvada  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Škarvada  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: 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: "Unknown or generated". 81 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/yarda/git-fedora/cura-fdm-
 materials/1466013-cura-fdm-materials/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/cura/resources
 False positive: owner is cura-2.6.1

[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/cura/resources
 See above

[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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: 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).
[?]: 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]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of 

[Bug 1472748] Review Request: perl-Tk-FontDialog - Font dialog widget for perl/Tk

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472748

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar  ---
URL and Source0 addressed are Ok.
Source0 archive (SHA-256:
7c00e8b7213e8b7faf3a0040d46994d7007be4fd501b430d994bc7a8b5806332) is original.
Ok.
Summary verified from lib/Tk/FontDialog.pm. Ok.
Description is Ok.
License verified from lib/Tk/FontDialog.pm. Ok.
No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok.
BuildRequires are Ok.
All tests pass. Ok.

$ rpmlint perl-Tk-FontDialog.spec
../SRPMS/perl-Tk-FontDialog-0.18-1.fc27.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Tk-FontDialog-0.18-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
perl-Tk-FontDialog.spec:30: W: comparison-operator-in-deptoken font(:lang=en)
perl-Tk-FontDialog.src:30: W: comparison-operator-in-deptoken font(:lang=en)
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.

$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Tk-FontDialog-0.18-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jul 19 14:15
/usr/share/doc/perl-Tk-FontDialog
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1568 Mar 22 07:10
/usr/share/doc/perl-Tk-FontDialog/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot  318 Jul 12  2012
/usr/share/doc/perl-Tk-FontDialog/README
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3866 Jul 19 14:15
/usr/share/man/man3/Tk::FontDialog.3pm.gz
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jul 19 14:15
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Tk
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot24652 Mar 22 07:10
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Tk/FontDialog.pm
File permissions and layout are Ok.

$ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Tk-FontDialog-0.18-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
| sort -f | uniq -c
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.26.0)
  1 perl(strict)
  1 perl(Tk) >= 800
  1 perl(Tk::Font)
  1 perl(Tk::HList)
  1 perl(Tk::ItemStyle)
  1 perl(vars)
  1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
Binary requires are Ok.

$ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Tk-FontDialog-0.18-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
| sort -f | uniq -c
  1 perl(Tk::FontDialog) = 0.18
  1 perl-Tk-FontDialog = 0.18-1.fc27
Binary provides are Ok.

$ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Tk-FontDialog-0.18-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok.

The package builds in F27 
(https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20610823). Ok.

The package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines.
Resolution: Package APPROVED.

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

[Bug 1472377] Review Request: perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO - Perl Object-oriented Interface to Uniforum Message Translation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472377

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
   |perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO - |perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO -
   |Perl object-oriented|Perl Object-oriented
   |Interface to Uniforum   |Interface to Uniforum
   |Message Translation |Message Translation



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

[Bug 1472377] Review Request: perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO - Perl object-oriented Interface to Uniforum Message Translation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472377

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
   |perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO - |perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO -
   |Perl OO Interface to|Perl object-oriented
   |Uniforum Message|Interface to Uniforum
   |Translation |Message Translation



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

[Bug 1472405] Review Request: gdb-exploitable - GDB extension for exploitability

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472405



--- Comment #2 from Steve Grubb  ---
Thanks for the review. In looking at the naming guidelines for addon packages,
it says the package should be named %{parent}-%{child}. I take it to mean gdb
is the parent and exploitable is the child. To add python would probably mean
people can't find it when doing "dnf list gdb*".

I changed the cp command to have an 'a' in it.
I moved the license file to be under a %license tag.

Updated spec file and srpm have been put to the same place.

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

[Bug 1472748] Review Request: perl-Tk-FontDialog - Font dialog widget for perl/Tk

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472748

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||ppi...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1466013] Review Request: cura-fdm-materials - Cura FDM Material database

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466013

Jaroslav Škarvada  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||jskar...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jskar...@redhat.com



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

[Bug 1472377] Review Request: perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO - Perl OO Interface to Uniforum Message Translation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472377

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1472679




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472679
[Bug 1472679] Review Request: perl-MooX-Locale-TextDomain-OO - Provide API
used in translator modules without translating
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1472679] Review Request: perl-MooX-Locale-TextDomain-OO - Provide API used in translator modules without translating

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472679

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1472377
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar  ---
URL and Source0 addresses are Ok.
Source0 archive (SHA-256:
5b8e52cffdd84a95d368ca10b943541b996a93e0d06396f4fe19335688e4173d) is Ok.
Summary verified in lib/MooX/Locale/TextDomain/OO.pm. Ok.
Description verified in lib/MooX/Locale/TextDomain/OO.pm. Ok.
License verified in README.md and lib/MooX/Locale/TextDomain/OO.pm. Ok.
No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok.
BuildRequires are Ok.
All tests pass. Ok.

$ rpmlint perl-MooX-Locale-TextDomain-OO.spec
../SRPMS/perl-MooX-Locale-TextDomain-OO-0.001-1.fc27.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-MooX-Locale-TextDomain-OO-0.001-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.

$ rpm -q -lv -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-MooX-Locale-TextDomain-OO-0.001-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jul 19 13:50
/usr/share/doc/perl-MooX-Locale-TextDomain-OO
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot  125 Jun  1 10:52
/usr/share/doc/perl-MooX-Locale-TextDomain-OO/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2128 May 31 20:24
/usr/share/doc/perl-MooX-Locale-TextDomain-OO/README.md
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1996 Jul 19 13:50
/usr/share/man/man3/MooX::Locale::TextDomain::OO.3pm.gz
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jul 19 13:50
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/MooX
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jul 19 13:50
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/MooX/Locale
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jul 19 13:50
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/MooX/Locale/TextDomain
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2843 May 31 20:24
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/MooX/Locale/TextDomain/OO.pm
File layout and permissions are Ok.

$ rpm -q --requires -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-MooX-Locale-TextDomain-OO-0.001-1.fc27.noarch.rpm | sort -f
| uniq -c
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.26.0)
  1 perl(Carp)
  1 perl(Locale::TextDomain::OO)
  1 perl(Moo) >= 1.003
  1 perl(Moo::Role)
  1 perl(MooX::Locale::Passthrough)
  1 perl(Scalar::Util)
  1 perl(strict)
  1 perl(warnings)
  1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
FIX: Do not run-require `perl(Moo)', move the version constrain to
`perl(Moo::Role)'.

$ rpm -q --provides -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-MooX-Locale-TextDomain-OO-0.001-1.fc27.noarch.rpm | sort -f
| uniq -c
  1 perl(MooX::Locale::TextDomain::OO) = 0.001
  1 perl-MooX-Locale-TextDomain-OO = 0.001-1.fc27
Binary provides are Ok.

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

Please correct the `FIX' item before building this package.
Resolution: Package APPROVED.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472377
[Bug 1472377] Review Request: perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO - Perl OO Interface
to Uniforum Message Translation
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1472679] Review Request: perl-MooX-Locale-TextDomain-OO - Provide API used in translator modules without translating

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472679

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||ppi...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1421413] Review Request: sysusage - System monitoring based on perl, rrdtool, and sysstat

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421413



--- Comment #22 from Frank Crawford  ---
(In reply to Marek Cermak from comment #21)
> Great, thanks, Frank.

Thanks Marek.

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

[Bug 1472377] Review Request: perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO - Perl OO Interface to Uniforum Message Translation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472377

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar  ---
URL and Source0 addresses are Ok.
Source0 archive (SHA-256:
fbf5bdea5575e19ac02cb5fa67efb060d4097840684622502ee615be4bbb5fec) is original.
Ok.

TODO: Replace the `OO' with 'object-oriented' word in the summary.
TODO: The package contains many modules, but the description reads `This
module'. Change it to plural.

License verified from README, lib/Locale/TextDomain/OO.pm and other files. Ok.
No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok.
MooX::Types::MooseLike, Safe, charnames are not used. Ok.

TODO: Build-require `perl(:VERSION) >= 5.8' (Makefile.PL:2).

FIX: Do not build-require `perl(Locale::TextDomain::OO::Util)', it's not used
anywhere. You can move the version constrain to
`perl(Locale::TextDomain::OO::Util::JoinSplitLexiconKeys)' dependency.

Test::Perl::Critic and Test::Prereq::Build and Test::Kwalitee are not used. Ok.
All tests pass. Ok.

$ rpmlint perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO.spec
../SRPMS/perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO-1.028-1.fc27.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO-1.028-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO.noarch: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO/example/LocaleData/de/LC_MESSAGES/example.po
perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO.noarch: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO/example/LocaleData/de/LC_MESSAGES/example_cp1252.po
perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO.noarch: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO/example/LocaleData/de/LC_MESSAGES/example_maketext.po
perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO.noarch: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO/example/LocaleData/de/LC_MESSAGES/example_maketext_style_gettext.po
perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/doc/perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO/example/LocaleData/de/LC_MESSAGES/example.mo
perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/doc/perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO/example/LocaleData/de/LC_MESSAGES/example_cp1252.mo
perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/doc/perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO/example/LocaleData/de/LC_MESSAGES/example_maketext.mo
perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/doc/perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO/example/LocaleData/de/LC_MESSAGES/example_maketext_style_gettext.mo
perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/doc/perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO/example/LocaleData/de/LC_MULTIPLURAL2/example_multiplural.mo
perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO.noarch: W: file-not-in-%lang
/usr/share/doc/perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO/example/LocaleData/ru/LC_MESSAGES/example.mo
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.

File layout and permissions are Ok.

TODO: The javascript/Locale directory could be packages as JavaScript-language
sub-package. See lib/Locale/TextDomain/OO/JavaScript.pm documentation.

$ rpm -q --requires -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO-1.028-1.fc27.noarch.rpm | sort -f |
uniq -c
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.26.0)
  1 perl(Carp)
  1 perl(Class::Load) >= 0.19
  1 perl(Clone)
  1 perl(Encode)
  1 perl(English)
  1 perl(Hash::Util)
  1 perl(JSON::PP)
  1 perl(Locale::MO::File) >= 0.06
  1 perl(Locale::PO) >= 0.24
  1 perl(Locale::TextDomain::OO::Singleton::Lexicon)
  1 perl(Locale::TextDomain::OO::Translator)
  1 perl(Locale::TextDomain::OO::Util) >= 2.002
  1 perl(Locale::TextDomain::OO::Util::ExtractHeader) >= 3.006
  1 perl(Locale::TextDomain::OO::Util::JoinSplitLexiconKeys)
  1 perl(Locale::Utils::PlaceholderBabelFish) >= 0.001
  1 perl(Locale::Utils::PlaceholderMaketext) >= 1.000
  1 perl(Locale::Utils::PlaceholderNamed) >= 1.000
  1 perl(Moo) >= 1.003001
  1 perl(Moo::Role)
  1 perl(MooX::Singleton)
  1 perl(MooX::StrictConstructor)
  1 perl(MooX::Types::MooseLike::Base)
  1 perl(namespace::autoclean)
  1 perl(Path::Tiny) >= 0.052
  1 perl(Scalar::Util)
  1 perl(strict)
  1 perl(Tie::Sub) >= 0.09
  1 perl(Try::Tiny)
  1 perl(warnings)
  1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
FIX: Do not run-require `perl(Locale::TextDomain::OO::Util)', it's not used
anywhere. You can move the version constrain to
`perl(Locale::TextDomain::OO::Util::JoinSplitLexiconKeys)' dependency.

$ rpm -q --provides -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO-1.028-1.fc27.noarch.rpm | sort -f |
uniq -c
  1 perl(Locale::TextDomain::OO) = 1.028
  1 perl(Locale::TextDomain::OO::FunctionalInterface) = 1.000
  1 perl(Locale::TextDomain::OO::JavaScript) = 1.017
  1 

[Bug 1466844] Review Request: modtools - Utilities for creating and managing modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466844

Petr Hracek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Petr Hracek  ---
Ok, SPEC file is fine and package is REVIEWED. Well done.

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

[Bug 1443076] Review Request: java-9-openjdk - OpenJDK Runtime Environment in implementation of java 9 specification

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443076



--- Comment #29 from jiri vanek  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #28)
> updated:
> 
> Spec URL:
> https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/openjdk9Review/V4/java-9-openjdk.spec
> SRPM URL:
> https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/openjdk9Review/V4/java-9-openjdk-9.0.0.178-1.
> fc24.src.rpm
> Description: OpenJDK Runtime Environment in implementation of java 9
> specification
> Fedora Account System Username: jvanek
> 
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20597202 now should pass.

Faield too.

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20607323 have correct
aot_arches, still, failed on aarch64 (imho not rpm bug, but dscovering in
progress)

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

[Bug 1466844] Review Request: modtools - Utilities for creating and managing modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466844



--- Comment #3 from Petr Hracek  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Dist tag is present.


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 52 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in
 /home/phracek/1466844-modtools/licensecheck.txt
[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
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[-]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[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.
[-]: 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 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]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: 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, /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]: 

[Bug 1472405] Review Request: gdb-exploitable - GDB extension for exploitability

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472405

Paul Wouters  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Paul Wouters  ---

Package is APPROVED

My only question is, should it be called python-gdb-exploitable ? I am fine
with either.



nits:

rm -rf %{buildroot} in %install is not needed

%defattr(-,root,root,-) is not needed

Buildroot is not needed

%clean present but not required

the install section uses cp -r and not cp -a to preserve timestamps

gdb-exploitable.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/gdb-exploitable/AUTHORS.txt
gdb-exploitable.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/gdb-exploitable/LICENSE.md



Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
  in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
  for the package is included in %license.
  Note: License file LICENSE.md is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


= 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated".
 40 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/paul/1472405-gdb-exploitable/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
 Note: %defattr present but not needed
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: %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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[-]: Python eggs must not download 

[Bug 1472748] New: Review Request: perl-Tk-FontDialog - Font dialog widget for perl/Tk

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472748

Bug ID: 1472748
   Summary: Review Request: perl-Tk-FontDialog - Font dialog
widget for perl/Tk
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jples...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-Tk-FontDialog/perl-Tk-FontDialog.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-Tk-FontDialog/perl-Tk-FontDialog-0.18-1.fc27.src.rpm

Description:
This module implements a font dialog widget for perl/Tk.

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

This module is required for new version of perl-Config-Model.

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

[Bug 1472377] Review Request: perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO - Perl OO Interface to Uniforum Message Translation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472377

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||ppi...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1471598] Review Request: grub-theme-vimix - a beautiful theme for grub2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1471598

Iwicki Artur  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||fed...@svgames.pl



--- Comment #4 from Iwicki Artur  ---
>Group: Applications
>BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
The Group: and BuildRoot: tags should not be used. 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections

>License: GPL
You need to specify the licence version.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#GPL_and_LGPL

>Source0: %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Downloadable URLs are preferred. If not possible, have a comment describing how
to generate the tarball.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL

>grub2-mkconfig
I believe this calls for a "Requires: grub2-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 1469951] Review Request: perl-XML-LibXML-PrettyPrint - Add pleasant white space to an XML tree

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469951



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-XML-LibXML-PrettyPrint-0.006-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ea187703a2

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

[Bug 1469951] Review Request: perl-XML-LibXML-PrettyPrint - Add pleasant white space to an XML tree

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469951



--- Comment #7 from Petr Pisar  ---
No problem. I will build it into F26 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 1460317] Review Request: gnome-panel - GNOME Flashback panel

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460317



--- Comment #7 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Any progress on this? Otherwise I'll have to mark this package review as
stalled.

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

[Bug 1472405] Review Request: gdb-exploitable - GDB extension for exploitability

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472405

Paul Wouters  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1472663] Review Request: variety - Wallpaper changer that automatically downloads wallpapers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472663



--- Comment #1 from mgans...@alice.de  ---
rpmlint reports that the package contains no documentation
I opened a Ticket: https://bugs.launchpad.net/variety/+bug/1705199

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

[Bug 1472679] Review Request: perl-MooX-Locale-TextDomain-OO - Provide API used in translator modules without translating

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472679

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1465429




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465429
[Bug 1465429] perl-MooX-Options-4.100 is available
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1472377] Review Request: perl-Locale-TextDomain-OO - Perl OO Interface to Uniforum Message Translation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472377

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1465429




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465429
[Bug 1465429] perl-MooX-Options-4.100 is available
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1472679] New: Review Request: perl-MooX-Locale-TextDomain-OO - Provide API used in translator modules without translating

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472679

Bug ID: 1472679
   Summary: Review Request: perl-MooX-Locale-TextDomain-OO -
Provide API used in translator modules without
translating
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jples...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-MooX-Locale-TextDomain-OO/perl-MooX-Locale-TextDomain-OO.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-MooX-Locale-TextDomain-OO/perl-MooX-Locale-TextDomain-OO-0.001-1.fc27.src.rpm

Description:
This module provides API used in translator modules without translating.

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

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

[Bug 187313] Review Request: perl-Authen-Radius

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=187313

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||clem.ou...@gmail.com



--- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar  ---
*** Bug 1472175 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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

[Bug 1472663] New: Review Request: variety - Wallpaper changer that automatically downloads wallpapers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472663

Bug ID: 1472663
   Summary: Review Request: variety - Wallpaper changer that
automatically downloads wallpapers
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: mgans...@online.de
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/variety.spec
SRPM URL:
https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/variety-0.6.4-1.fc26.src.rpm

Description: %description
Variety changes the desktop wallpaper on a regular basis,
using user-specified or automatically downloaded images.

Variety sits conveniently as an indicator in the panel
and can be easily paused and resumed. The mouse wheel
can be used to scroll wallpapers back and forth until
you find the perfect one for your current mood.

Apart from displaying images from local folders, several
different online sources can be used to fetch wallpapers
according to user-specified criteria.

Variety can also automatically apply various fancy
filters to the displayed images - charcoal painting,
oil painting, heavy blurring, etc. - so that your
desktop is always fresh and unique.

Fedora Account System Username: martinkg

rpmlint -i -v variety.spec
/home/martin/rpmbuild/SRPMS/variety-0.6.4-1.fc26.src.rpm
/home/martin/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/variety-0.6.4-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
variety.spec: I: checking
variety.spec: I: checking-url
https://launchpad.net/variety/trunk/0.6.4/+download/variety_0.6.4-0-589-201704290523.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
variety.src: I: checking
variety.src: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/variety (timeout 10 seconds)
variety.src: I: checking-url
https://launchpad.net/variety/trunk/0.6.4/+download/variety_0.6.4-0-589-201704290523.tar.gz
(timeout 10 seconds)
variety.noarch: I: checking
variety.noarch: I: checking-url https://launchpad.net/variety (timeout 10
seconds)
variety.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

variety.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary variety
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

%changelog
* Tue Jul 18 2017 Martin Gansser  - 0.6.4-1
- initial build

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

[Bug 1458780] Review Request: Recording - Records of user sessions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458780



--- Comment #3 from Delyan Yanev  ---
Spec URL: https://delyanyanev.fedorapeople.org/recording.spec
SRPM URL: https://delyanyanev.fedorapeople.org/recording-1.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
Description: This is rpm package on whole process of recording of user
sessions.
Fedora Account System Username: delyanyanev

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

[Bug 1308488] Review Request: mediaconch - Most relevant technical and tag data for video and audio files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308488



--- Comment #12 from Vasiliy Glazov  ---
Spec URL:
http://raw.githubusercontent.com/RussianFedora/mediaconch/master/mediaconch.spec
SRPM URL:
http://koji.russianfedora.pro/kojifiles/work/tasks/3953/53953/mediaconch-17.06-2.fc27.src.rpm

1. Removed all %if
2. Removed Requires libzen and libmediainfo
3. make install-strip DESTDIR=%{buildroot} changed to %make_install
4. Removed all KDE specific desktop files.

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

[Bug 1460917] Review Request: rpkg - Command-line client tool to DistGit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460917



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
rpkg-client-0.6-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-e812e8ac0b

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