[Bug 1507371] Review Request: R-brew - Templating Framework for Report Generation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507371



--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=22796548

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

[Bug 1507371] New: Review Request: R-brew - Templating Framework for Report Generation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507371

Bug ID: 1507371
   Summary: Review Request: R-brew - Templating Framework for
Report Generation
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: quantum.anal...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org




Spec URL: http://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-brew.spec
SRPM URL: http://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-brew-1.0.6-1.fc26.src.rpm

Description:
brew implements a templating framework for mixing text and R code for
report generation. brew template syntax is similar to PHP, Ruby's erb
module, Java Server Pages, and Python's psp module.

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

[Bug 1507362] Review Request: python-pytest-tornado - Py.test plugin for testing of asynchronous tornado applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507362



--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=22795620

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

[Bug 1507362] New: Review Request: python-pytest-tornado - Py.test plugin for testing of asynchronous tornado applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507362

Bug ID: 1507362
   Summary: Review Request: python-pytest-tornado - Py.test plugin
for testing of asynchronous tornado applications
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: quantum.anal...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org




Spec URL: http://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//python-pytest-tornado.spec
SRPM URL:
http://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//python-pytest-tornado-0.4.5-2.fc26.src.rpm

Description:
A py.test plugin providing fixtures and markers to simplify testing of
asynchronous tornado applications.

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

[Bug 1481630] Review Request: VirtualBox-guest-additions - VirtualBox Guest Additions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1481630

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #29 from Neal Gompa  ---
Hans,

Any update on the state of VirtualBox guest addition kmods for the Fedora 27
kernel?

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

[Bug 1481630] Review Request: VirtualBox-guest-additions - VirtualBox Guest Additions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1481630



--- Comment #28 from Neal Gompa  ---
(In reply to Sergio Monteiro Basto from comment #27)
> @Hans, I'm reviewing VirtualBox packages , to adjust guest 3D passthru, and
> I have some questions .
> 1 - you do not add /usr/lib64/VBoxEGL.so to package ? 
> 
> 2- Reading VBoxOGLRun.sh  we got [1] , shouldn't we enable that as system
> wide , by default in all system ?  
> 
> My plan is update Vbox packages with 5.1.30 in all branches and after that
> begin to pack 5.2 in rawhide and F27, we / I may start thinking in drop
> guest-additions in RPMFusion packages or something like that and plan to
> coordinate the existence of the 2 src.rpms in repos. 
> 
> 3- Fedora kernels for f27 or rawhide already have vboxguest kernel modules ?
> or do we need still enable it ? (this part still not studied, but for
> testing we need one kernel with the modules ... )  
> 
> [1]
> if VBoxClient --check3d; then
> export
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/lib64/VBoxGuestAdditions:/usr/lib/VBoxGuestAdditions

vboxvideo seems to have been activated in the Fedora 27 kernel, but vboxguest
is still missing...

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

[Bug 1507347] Review Request: python-jupyter-kernel-test - Machinery for testing Jupyter kernels via the messaging protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507347



--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=22794326

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

[Bug 1507347] New: Review Request: python-jupyter-kernel-test - Machinery for testing Jupyter kernels via the messaging protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507347

Bug ID: 1507347
   Summary: Review Request: python-jupyter-kernel-test - Machinery
for testing Jupyter kernels via the messaging protocol
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: quantum.anal...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org




Spec URL: http://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//python-jupyter-kernel-test.spec
SRPM URL:
http://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//python-jupyter-kernel-test-0.3-3.fc26.src.rpm

Description:
jupyter_kernel_test is a tool for testing Jupyter kernels. It tests kernels for
successful code execution and conformance with the Jupyter Messaging Protocol
(currently 5.0).

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

[Bug 1481630] Review Request: VirtualBox-guest-additions - VirtualBox Guest Additions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1481630



--- Comment #27 from Sergio Monteiro Basto  ---
@Hans, I'm reviewing VirtualBox packages , to adjust guest 3D passthru, and I
have some questions .
1 - you do not add /usr/lib64/VBoxEGL.so to package ? 

2- Reading VBoxOGLRun.sh  we got [1] , shouldn't we enable that as system wide
, by default in all system ?  

My plan is update Vbox packages with 5.1.30 in all branches and after that
begin to pack 5.2 in rawhide and F27, we / I may start thinking in drop
guest-additions in RPMFusion packages or something like that and plan to
coordinate the existence of the 2 src.rpms in repos. 

3- Fedora kernels for f27 or rawhide already have vboxguest kernel modules ? or
do we need still enable it ? (this part still not studied, but for testing we
need one kernel with the modules ... )  

[1]
if VBoxClient --check3d; then
export
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/lib64/VBoxGuestAdditions:/usr/lib/VBoxGuestAdditions

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

[Bug 1506722] Review Request: python-octaviaclient - Client for OpenStack Octavia ( Load Balancer as a Service)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506722

Nir Magnezi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||nmagn...@redhat.com



--- Comment #2 from Nir Magnezi  ---
Carlos,

Initial review:

1. In other packages we have, URL points to a launchpad URL. since Octavia
migrated to storyboard, perhaps the URL should be:
https://storyboard.openstack.org/#!/project/911

2. You should end up with a separate RPM for tests, see the
python-neutronclient spec for reference:
https://github.com/rdo-packages/neutronclient-distgit/blob/26310d84ea59c383c928be5d01d350f0e21291cd/python-neutronclient.spec#L65-L130

3. Another reference can use to learn how to handle the tests deletion from the
main rpm:
https://github.com/rdo-packages/neutronclient-distgit/commit/296abb5e9aee5019ea22b4f2235f12fae2916a43

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

[Bug 879928] Review Request: rigsofrods - Vehicle simulator based on soft-body physics

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879928



--- Comment #17 from Pavel Alexeev  ---
Hello Robert-André Mauchin. Thank you for the taking care on it.

> - Use this simplified Source:
> Source0:   
> https://github.com/RigsOfRods/rigs-of-rods/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

Done

> - COPYING should not be listed in %doc, but in %licensi:
> %files
> %doc AUTHORS.md BUILDING.md CONTRIBUTING.md DEPENDENCIES.md README.md
> %license COPYING

Done

> - There are several files with license other than GPLv3:
> *No copyright* BSL
> --
> rigs-of-rods-0.4.7.0/source/main/utils/utf8/README.md
> *No copyright* CC by (v2.5)
> ---
> rigs-of-rods-0.4.7.0/bin/resources/famicons/readme.txt
>   Please add them to the License: field and add a comment explaining which 
> license cover which parts.

Done

> - You should split the data in /usr/share in a -data noarch subpackage:
> Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is 
> arched.
> Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 138373120 bytes in /usr/share
> rigsofrods-0.4.7.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm:138373120

Done

> - Several files have an incorrect FSF address in the header. You should patch 
> them with the updated address and notify upstream about it:

Upstream informed about that long time ago -
https://github.com/RigsOfRods/rigs-of-rods/issues/538 and it noted in
changelog.

If you do not insist - I do not willing patch that separately from upstream.

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=22792831
Changes:
https://github.com/Hubbitus/rpm-rigsofrods/commit/f15a8cffc68d8275a4df81b739f8eb9a2422bc6f
Spec:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Hubbitus/rpm-rigsofrods/f15a8cffc68d8275a4df81b739f8eb9a2422bc6f/rigsofrods.spec
Srpm:
http://rpm.hubbitus.info/Fedora26/rigsofrods/rigsofrods-0.4.7.0-2.fc28.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 1507327] Review Request: mod_security3 - ModSecurity v3 Apache Connector

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507327

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Hello,

 - Build fails because you're missing a bunch of BR:

/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lcurl
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lGeoIP
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lyajl
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lxml2
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lz
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -llzma
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lpcre
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status

   Here is the needed BR:

BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libcurl)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(geoip)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(yajl)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libxml-2.0)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(zlib)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(liblzma)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libpcre)



Package Review
==

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


= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright*
 Apache (v2.0)". 88 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/mod_security3/review-
 mod_security3/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 /etc/httpd/modsecurity.d/activated_rules(mod_security),
 /etc/httpd/modsecurity.d/local_rules(mod_security),
 /etc/httpd/modsecurity.d(mod_security)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: 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 uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file 

[Bug 1504591] Review Request: qxtglobalshortcut - Cross-platform library for handling system-wide shortcuts in Qt applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1504591



--- Comment #15 from mgans...@alice.de  ---
Thanks for reviewing this ticket.

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

[Bug 1506986] Review Request: mld2p4 - MultiLevel Domain Decomposition Parallel Preconditioners Package based on PSBLAS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506986

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Hello,

 - Just use:

Source0:
https://github.com/sfilippone/mld2p4-2/archive/v%{version}/mld2p4-2-%{version}.tar.gz

 - Group: is not needed in Fedora (in serial-devel) 

 - Use pushd lib/popd instead of cd lib/cd .. (4 occurrences)

Trivial things, package is thus accepted.


Package Review
==

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


= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (unspecified)", "NTP", "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or
 later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 576 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/mld2p4
 /review-mld2p4/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/gfortran,
 /usr/include/mpich-x86_64, /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib,
 /usr/lib64/gfortran/modules, /usr/lib64/mpich, /usr/include/openmpi-
 x86_64, /usr/lib64/mpich/lib, /usr/lib64/gfortran/modules/mpich,
 /usr/lib64/openmpi, /usr/lib64/gfortran/modules/openmpi
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: 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 

[Bug 1504591] Review Request: qxtglobalshortcut - Cross-platform library for handling system-wide shortcuts in Qt applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1504591

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #14 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
All ok for me, 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 1507104] Review Request: vacuum-im - Cross platform Jabber client written on Qt

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507104



--- Comment #3 from mgans...@alice.de  ---
Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/vacuum-im.spec
SRPM URL:
https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/vacuum-im-1.3.0-0.2.20171028git6b614da.fc26.src.rpm

%changelog
* Sun Oct 29 2017 Martin Gansser  -
1.3.0-0.2.20171028git6b614da
- Update to 1.3.0-0.2.20171028git6b614da
- Do not run update-desktop-database on Fedora 25+ as per packaging guidelines
- Remove %%dir %%{_libdir}/%%{name}/plugins, it's marked as listed twice

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

[Bug 1504591] Review Request: qxtglobalshortcut - Cross-platform library for handling system-wide shortcuts in Qt applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1504591



--- Comment #13 from mgans...@alice.de  ---
Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/qxtglobalshortcut.spec
SRPM URL:
https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/qxtglobalshortcut-0.0.1-0.5.20171021git1644620.fc26.src.rpm

%changelog
* Sun Oct 29 2017 Martin Gansser  -
0.0.1-0.5.20171021git1644620
- Don't include COPYING in %%doc, only in %%license
- Move Unversioned so-files directly in %%_libdir
- Use correct license tag BSD

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

[Bug 1507327] Review Request: mod_security3 - ModSecurity v3 Apache Connector

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507327



--- Comment #1 from Athmane Madjoudj  ---
Rpmlint output:
mod_security3.spec:38: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mod_security
mod_security3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmodsecurity ->
molecularity
mod_security3.src:38: W: unversioned-explicit-provides mod_security
mod_security3.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmodsecurity ->
molecularity
mod_security3.x86_64: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/mod_security3 770
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.


NB. This pkg depends on libmodsecurity (v3) which is available only in 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 1507327] New: Review Request: mod_security3 - ModSecurity v3 Apache Connector

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507327

Bug ID: 1507327
   Summary: Review Request: mod_security3 - ModSecurity v3 Apache
Connector
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: athma...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://athmane.fedorapeople.org/review/mod_security3.spec
SRPM URL:
https://athmane.fedorapeople.org/review/mod_security3-0.1.1-0.20170821git4e8854c.fc27.src.rpm

Description:
The ModSecurity-apache connector is the connection point between 
Apache and libmodsecurity (ModSecurity v3). Said another way, this
project provides a communication channel between Apache and libmodsecurity.
This connector is required to use LibModSecurity with Apache.

Fedora Account System Username: athmane

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

[Bug 1310246] Review Request: python-ownpaste - A pastebin web application , designed to be used as a personal/private pastebin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310246

Athmane Madjoudj  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |EOL
Last Closed||2017-10-29 14:55:15



--- Comment #2 from Athmane Madjoudj  ---
Dropping the request (dead project)

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

[Bug 1504591] Review Request: qxtglobalshortcut - Cross-platform library for handling system-wide shortcuts in Qt applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1504591

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #12 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages

libqxtglobalshortcut.so is currently in the main package whereas it should be
in the -devel subpackage.

 -The license in COPYING is BSD, not LGPLv3.

 - Don't include COPYING in %doc, only in %license:

%doc AUTHORS COPYING README.md
%license COPYING


Issues:
===
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages


= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v3) LGPL (v3)", "Unknown or generated".
 26 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/qxtglobalshortcut/review-
 qxtglobalshortcut/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager 

[Bug 1507104] Review Request: vacuum-im - Cross platform Jabber client written on Qt

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507104



--- Comment #2 from mgans...@alice.de  ---
Thanks for reviewing this ticket.
Can you please reviewing the depending package qxtglobalshortcut.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1504591

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

[Bug 1505238] Review Request: iwd - Wireless daemon for Linux

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1505238

Lubomir Rintel  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2017-10-29 13:25:18



--- Comment #5 from Lubomir Rintel  ---
Imported and built.
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 1505237] Review Request: libell - Embedded Linux library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1505237

Lubomir Rintel  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2017-10-29 13:25:02



--- Comment #4 from Lubomir Rintel  ---
Imported and built. Thank you!

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

[Bug 1507303] Review Request: tepl - Text editor product line

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507303

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Package accepted.


Package Review
==

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


= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11
 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "FSF All Permissive". 164 files
 have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/tepl/review-tepl/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 3 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 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.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in tepl-
 devel , tepl-tests , tepl-debuginfo , tepl-debugsource
[x]: Package functions as 

[Bug 1507286] Review Request: R-evaluate - Parsing and Evaluation Tools that Provide More Details than the Default

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507286

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Package accepted.



Package Review
==

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


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 60 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/R-evaluate/review-R-evaluate/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
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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]: 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

R:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires.
[x]: The package has the standard %install section.
[x]: Package requires R-core.

= 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.
[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 

[Bug 1506451] Review Request: rubygem-vault - A Ruby API client for interacting with a Vault server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506451



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-hiera-vault-0.2.2-1.el7, rubygem-vault-0.10.1-1.el7 has been pushed to
the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make
note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-7f752286ef

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

[Bug 1506453] Review Request: rubygem-hiera-vault - Module for using vault as a hiera backend

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506453



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-hiera-vault-0.2.2-1.el7, rubygem-vault-0.10.1-1.el7 has been pushed to
the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make
note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-7f752286ef

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

[Bug 1502600] Review Request: kabi-dw - Detect changes in the ABI between kernel builds

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1502600

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
kabi-dw-0-0.2.20171018gite6af311.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-2017-5a90ae28c2

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

[Bug 1503765] Review Request: icat - display images in terminal

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1503765



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
icat-0.4-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems
still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1507104] Review Request: vacuum-im - Cross platform Jabber client written on Qt

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507104

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Hello,

 - update-desktop-database is not needed for Fedora >= 24. Please remove them.

 - Remove %dir %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins, it's marked as listed twice.


This is trivial, so the package is bccepted, but please don't forget to fix
these before import.


Issues:
===
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib64/vacuum-im/plugins
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles


= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright*
 GPL", "MPL (v1.1) GPL (v2 or later) or LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "AFL
 (v2.1) BSD (3 clause)", "zlib/libpng", "BSD (3 clause)", "LGPL
 (v2.1)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (2
 clause)", "GPL (v2.1) LGPL (v2.1)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 2466 files
 have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/vacuum-im/review-vacuum-im/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: 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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
 contains icons.
 Note: icons in vacuum-im
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: 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]: 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]: 

[Bug 1419271] Review Request: leatherman -A collection of C++ and CMake utility libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419271

Haïkel Guémar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #8 from Haïkel Guémar  ---
Spec URL: https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/leatherman.spec
SRPM URL:
https://hguemar.fedorapeople.org/reviews/leatherman-1.3.0-3.fc27.src.rpm

I merged your spec, I only kept compatibility with CentOS SIGs repo which have
a newer boost159-devel, but diff is kept to a minimal by using a %boost_version
macro.

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

[Bug 1500072] Review Request: macromilter - Milter to check mails for suspicious Microsoft VBA macro code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1500072
Bug 1500072 depends on bug 1505374, which changed state.

Bug 1505374 Summary: Review Request: python-oletools - Tools to analyze 
Microsoft OLE2 files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1505374

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |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 1505374] Review Request: python-oletools - Tools to analyze Microsoft OLE2 files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1505374

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-10-29 11:01:05



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-oletools-0.51-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1503765] Review Request: icat - display images in terminal

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1503765

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-10-29 10:47:08



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
icat-0.4-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems
still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1434578] Review Request: gtef - GTK+ Text Editor Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434578



--- Comment #13 from Kalev Lember  ---
I've submitted tepl for review as well now,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507303

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

[Bug 1434578] Review Request: gtef - GTK+ Text Editor Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434578

Kalev Lember  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||gtef-2.0.1-1.fc26
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-10-29 10:01:34



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

[Bug 1507303] New: Review Request: tepl - Text editor product line

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507303

Bug ID: 1507303
   Summary: Review Request: tepl - Text editor product line
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: klem...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/tepl.spec
SRPM URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/tepl-3.0.0-1.fc28.src.rpm
Description:
Tepl is a library that eases the development of GtkSourceView-based text
editors and IDEs. Tepl is the acronym for “Text editor product line”.

Fedora Account System Username: kalev

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

[Bug 1507286] Review Request: R-evaluate - Parsing and Evaluation Tools that Provide More Details than the Default

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507286



--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=22783837

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

[Bug 1507286] New: Review Request: R-evaluate - Parsing and Evaluation Tools that Provide More Details than the Default

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507286

Bug ID: 1507286
   Summary: Review Request: R-evaluate - Parsing and Evaluation
Tools that Provide More Details than the Default
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: quantum.anal...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org




Spec URL: http://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-evaluate.spec
SRPM URL: http://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-evaluate-0.10.1-4.fc26.src.rpm

Description:
Parsing and evaluation tools that make it easy to recreate the command
line behaviour of R.

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

[Bug 1506986] Review Request: mld2p4 - MultiLevel Domain Decomposition Parallel Preconditioners Package based on PSBLAS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506986



--- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande  ---
SPEC:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/ForTesting/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00655562-mld2p4/mld2p4.spec

SRPM:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/ForTesting/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00655562-mld2p4/mld2p4-2.1.0-3.fc28.src.rpm

Changelog:
- Rebuild against openblas

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

[Bug 1507235] Review Request: python-mpd2 - Python library providing a client interface for MPD

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507235



--- Comment #10 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  ---
Thanks for the review. I've gone ahead and requested repos now.

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

[Bug 1507235] Review Request: python-mpd2 - Python library providing a client interface for MPD

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507235

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #9 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #8)
> Hrm, I was under the impression that the release archives shouldn't be used
> because they're liable to change without notice - and so the commit archives
> should be preferred. I can't find it in the docs, though...
> 

I've never heard about that before, all packages I've been reviewing use the
release archives.


Package is 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 1506734] Review Request: php-amqplib - Pure PHP implementation of the AMQP protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506734

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Remi Collet  ---
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines


=== 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 1506734] Review Request: php-amqplib - Pure PHP implementation of the AMQP protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506734

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.com



--- Comment #2 from Remi Collet  ---
Created attachment 1344953
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1344953=edit
phpci.log

phpCompatInfo version 5.0.8 DB version 1.24.0 built Oct 03 2017
 06:26:53 CEST static analyze results

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

[Bug 1506734] Review Request: php-amqplib - Pure PHP implementation of the AMQP protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506734

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Attachment|0   |1
#1344954 is||
   obsolete||



--- Comment #4 from Remi Collet  ---
Created attachment 1344955
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1344955=edit
review.txt

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1506734
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, PHP, Shell-api

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

[Bug 1506734] Review Request: php-amqplib - Pure PHP implementation of the AMQP protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506734



--- Comment #3 from Remi Collet  ---
Created attachment 1344954
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1344954=edit
review.txt

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1506734
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, PHP, Shell-api

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

[Bug 1505079] Review Request: php-goaop-parser-reflection - Provides reflection information, based on raw source

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1505079



--- Comment #2 from Remi Collet  ---
Running local bulid with phpparser 3 is ok

Running local bulid with phpparser 2 is KO

1) Go\ParserReflection\ReflectionFileTest::testIsStrictType with data set
"/Stub/FileWithClasses71.php" ('/Stub/FileWithClasses71.php', true)
PhpParser\Error: Syntax error, unexpected '?', expecting T_VARIABLE on line 20

Running local bulid with phpparser 1 is KO

1) Go\ParserReflection\ReflectionClassTest::testGetModifiers with data set
"PHP7.0" ('/dev/shm/extras/BUILD/parser-...70.php')
PhpParser\Error: Syntax error, unexpected '{', expecting T_STRING on line 15

2) Go\ParserReflection\ReflectionClassTest::testGetModifiers with data set
"PHP7.1" ('/dev/shm/extras/BUILD/parser-...71.php')
PhpParser\Error: Syntax error, unexpected '{', expecting T_STRING on line 14


- What do you think of raising minimal build dependency on phpparser ?

- What do you think of raising minimal runtime dependency on phpparser ?
Is this a problem in the drupal stack (ie, is there other package which require
another version of phpparser) ?

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

[Bug 1505084] Review Request: php-pda-pheanstalk - PHP client for beanstalkd queue

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1505084

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Remi Collet  ---
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines


=== 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 1506734] Review Request: php-amqplib - Pure PHP implementation of the AMQP protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506734

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||fed...@famillecollet.com



--- Comment #1 from Remi Collet  ---
Mirnor issue with local build

1) PhpAmqpLib\Tests\Unit\AMQPCollectionTest::testEncode080
Failed asserting that two arrays are equal.

Trivial fix, in tests bootstrap
date_default_timezone_set('UTC');

BTW, test suite passes, so not a blocker (mock), but "nice to have".

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

[Bug 1505076] Review Request: php-vlucas-phpdotenv - Loads environment variables from .env

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1505076



--- Comment #2 from Remi Collet  ---
Created attachment 1344949
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1344949=edit
review.txt

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1505076
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, PHP, Shell-api

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

[Bug 1505084] Review Request: php-pda-pheanstalk - PHP client for beanstalkd queue

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1505084

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||fed...@famillecollet.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.com



--- Comment #1 from Remi Collet  ---
Created attachment 1344951
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1344951=edit
phpci.log

phpCompatInfo version 5.0.8 DB version 1.24.0 built Oct 03 2017
 06:26:53 CEST static analyze results

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

[Bug 1505076] Review Request: php-vlucas-phpdotenv - Loads environment variables from .env

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1505076

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||fed...@famillecollet.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|fed...@famillecollet.com



--- Comment #1 from Remi Collet  ---
Created attachment 1344948
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1344948=edit
phpci.log

phpCompatInfo version 5.0.8 DB version 1.24.0 built Oct 03 2017
 06:26:53 CEST static analyze results

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

[Bug 1505084] Review Request: php-pda-pheanstalk - PHP client for beanstalkd queue

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1505084



--- Comment #2 from Remi Collet  ---
Created attachment 1344952
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1344952=edit
review.txt

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1505084
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, PHP, Shell-api

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

[Bug 1505076] Review Request: php-vlucas-phpdotenv - Loads environment variables from .env

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1505076

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Remi Collet  ---
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines



=== 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 1505079] Review Request: php-goaop-parser-reflection - Provides reflection information, based on raw source

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1505079

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||fed...@famillecollet.com



--- Comment #1 from Remi Collet  ---
F26 scratch build OK
/dev/shm/extras/SRPMS/php-goaop-parser-reflection-1.4.0-1.fc25.remi.src.rpm

F28 scratch build OK
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=22780170

I have tons of failure with fedora-review build (rawhide), strangely this one
pull phpparser v1...

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

[Bug 1507235] Review Request: python-mpd2 - Python library providing a client interface for MPD

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507235



--- Comment #8 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  ---
Hrm, I was under the impression that the release archives shouldn't be used
because they're liable to change without notice - and so the commit archives
should be preferred. I can't find it in the docs, though...

Anyway, updated to use the release tag:

Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-mpd2/python-mpd2.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-mpd2/python-mpd2-0.5.5-3.fc27.src.rpm


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 1507235] Review Request: python-mpd2 - Python library providing a client interface for MPD

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507235



--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
   I don't understand, if it's a Release, just use the Release archive?

Source0:   
https://github.com/Mic92/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

   And:

%prep
%autosetup -n %{name}-%{version}

   No need for git commit.


   It's late over here, I'll finish the review tomorrow.

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

[Bug 1506961] Review Request: adobe-source-han-code-jp-fonts - Adobe OpenType UI font for mixed Latin and Japanese text

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506961

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Hello,

 - Source0 is returning error 404. Use this instead:

Source0:   
https://github.com/adobe-fonts/source-han-code-jp/archive/%{version}R/%{archivename}.zip

 - The README.md file has executable permissions, this isn't good. Remove the
executable bits in %prep and notify upstream about this issue.

chmod 0644 README.md

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

[Bug 1507235] Review Request: python-mpd2 - Python library providing a client interface for MPD

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507235

Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: python-mpd2 |Review Request: python-mpd2
   |- It is a Python library|- Python library providing
   |which provides a client |a client interface for MPD
   |interface for MPD   |



--- Comment #6 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  ---
Thanks for the comments and testing commands!

Here are the updated spec/srpms:

Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-mpd2/python-mpd2.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-mpd2/python-mpd2-0.5.5-2.fc27.src.rpm

I double checked. It isn't a git snapshot, it is a release on Github, and since
I'm using the sources from there, the commit information is needed. I've
updated the release string now.

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