[Bug 1520571] Review Request: perl-Data-Integer - Details of the native integer data type

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520571



--- Comment #5 from Petr Pisar  ---
Spec file changes:

--- perl-Data-Integer.spec.old  2017-12-05 12:43:40.87900 +0100
+++ perl-Data-Integer.spec  2017-12-06 08:44:07.66600 +0100
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Data-Integer/
 Source0:   
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/Z/ZE/ZEFRAM/Data-Integer-%{version}.tar.gz
 BuildArch:  noarch
-BuildRequires:  perl >= 0:5.006
+BuildRequires:  perl >= 5.6
 BuildRequires:  perl-generators
 BuildRequires:  perl-interpreter
 BuildRequires:  perl(Carp)
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
 BuildRequires:  perl(strict)
 BuildRequires:  perl(Test::More)
 BuildRequires:  perl(Test::Pod::Coverage)
-BuildRequires:  perl(Test::Pod)
+BuildRequires:  perl(Test::Pod) >= 1.00
 BuildRequires:  perl(warnings)
 Requires:   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo
$version))

@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@
 ./Build test

 %files
-%doc Changes META.json README
+%doc Changes README
 %{perl_vendorlib}/*
 %{_mandir}/man3/*


> FIX: Write dependency on a Perl language as `perl(:VERSION) >= 5.6' instead
> as `perl >= 0:5.006'. The `perl' package uses epoch and it pulls in
> unneeded packages.

FIX: This is still not correct. The correct RPM symbol is `perl(:VERSION)', not
`perl'.

> TODO: Do not package META.json. It's not intended for end users.
Ok.

> TODO: Constrain `perl(Test::Pod)' dependency with `>= 1.00' (t/pod_syn.t:5).
Ok.

Please fix the dependency and provide a new spec file.

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

[Bug 1517993] Review Request: python-rmtest - A simple framework for testing Redis modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1517993

Nathan Scott  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2017-12-06 00:52:29



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

[Bug 1380826] Review Request: pgadmin4 - Management tool for PostgreSQL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380826



--- Comment #3 from Anton Kochkov  ---
pgAdmin4 2.0 was released a couple months ago with PostgreSQL 10 suppor and
many bugfixes: https://www.pgadmin.org/docs/pgadmin4/dev/release_notes_2_0.html

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

[Bug 1520915] Review Request: tldr - command line client for tldr

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520915

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 #7 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
This is great, 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 1268742] Review Request: rubygem-bacon-colored_output - Colored output for Bacon test framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268742



--- Comment #10 from Ilya Gradina  ---
Hi Vit,
yes bacon not needed.

new spec:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/master/rubygems/rubygem-bacon-colored_output.spec

new srpm:
https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-bacon-colored_output-1.1.1-2.fc27.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 1268696] Review Request: rubygem-guard-rspec - Guard gem for RSpec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268696



--- Comment #3 from Ilya Gradina  ---
Hi Jaroslav,
thx for the review.
rubygem(launchy) - needed for tests, also as rubygem(gem_isolator)(I'll try to
send soon on review request).

results build on copr(with disable tests):
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ilgrad/test_rubygems/build/684766/

new spec:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/master/rubygems/rubygem-guard-rspec.spec
new srpm:
https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-guard-rspec-4.7.3-1.fc27.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 1431300] Review Request: python-dodgy - Searches for dodgy looking lines in Python code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431300

Orion Poplawski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed||2017-12-05 13:36:14



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

[Bug 1520915] Review Request: tldr - command line client for tldr

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520915



--- Comment #6 from Lumír Balhar  ---
Thanks for the reviews.

Summary, %install and %files fixed and spec/SRPM updated.

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

[Bug 1513733] Review Request: libcircle - A library used to distribute workloads

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1513733

Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #6 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  ---
That looks good to me. XXX APPROVED XXX 

Cheers!

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

[Bug 1520584] Review Request: perl-MooseX-Types-NetAddr-IP - NetAddr:: IP related types and coercions for Moose

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520584

Peter Oliver  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ma...@mavit.org.uk
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Peter Oliver  ---
The packaging guidelines say that you SHOULD ask upstream to include the text
of the licences in its own file.  Also, it would be better to use https://
rather than http:// for Source0.  Other than that, it all looks good to me.



Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[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". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/mavit/src/fedora/1520584-perl-MooseX-
 Types-NetAddr-IP/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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

Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
[x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned.

= 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.   Didn’t try, but tests passed.
[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.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.  Didn’t test, but

[Bug 1513733] Review Request: libcircle - A library used to distribute workloads

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1513733



--- Comment #5 from Christoph Junghans  ---
Thanks for the review!

(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #4)
> Mostly good, a few minor issues:
> 
> - the build logs show errors about `dot` not being available while doc
>   generation. You should include it in the BR and re-build to check that docs
>   are built correctly.
Good catch, thanks, fixed.

> - Please use arch-specific requires.
Fixed.

> - ldconfig must be run for packages with shared libraries:
>   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
Not needed for mpi-only packages (see #559009), I also added a comment to the
spec files:

# MPI subpackages don't need the ldconfig magic.  They are hidden by
# default, in MPI back-end-specific directory, and only show to the
# user after the relevant environment module has been loaded.
# rpmlint will report that as errors, but it is fine.

Spec URL: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/libcircle.spec
SRPM URL: https://junghans.fedorapeople.org/libcircle-0.2.1-0.3rc1.fc27.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 1520915] Review Request: tldr - command line client for tldr

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520915

Peter Oliver  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ma...@mavit.org.uk



--- Comment #5 from Peter Oliver  ---
The summary says that tldr is a command-line client for tldr.  Could this be
made a bit less circular, somehow, for the benefit of people who don't already
know what tldr is?  "Simplified and community-driven man pages", perhaps?

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

[Bug 1520568] Review Request: perl-Crypt-MySQL - Emulate MySQL PASSWORD() function

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520568



--- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova  ---
Source file is ok
Summary is ok
License is ok
Description is ok
URL and Source0 are ok
All tests passed

BuildRequires
FIX: Please add following buildrequires:
 - perl(DBI) - t/03_dbi.t:6
 - perl(Exporter) - lib/Crypt/MySQL.pm:17
 - perl(strict) - Build.PL:1
 - perl(vars) - lib/Crypt/MySQL.pm:4
 - perl(warnings) - Build.PL:2
 - perl(XSLoader) - lib/Crypt/MySQL.pm:10
FIX: Please add perl-devel and gcc, because it is XS package

$ rpm -qp --requires perl-Crypt-MySQL-0.04-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm | sort | uniq -c
  1 libc.so.6()(64bit)
  1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
  1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
  1 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
  1 libperl.so.5.26()(64bit)
  1 perl(Digest::SHA1)
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.26.1)
  1 perl(strict)
  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
  1 rtld(GNU_HASH)
FIX: Please add run-requires
 - perl(Exporter)
 - perl(XSLoader)

$ rpm -qp --provides perl-Crypt-MySQL-0.04-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm | sort | uniq -c
  1 perl(Crypt::MySQL) = 0.04
  1 perl-Crypt-MySQL = 0.04-1.fc28
  1 perl-Crypt-MySQL(x86-64) = 0.04-1.fc28
Binary provides are Ok.

$ rpmlint ./perl-Crypt-MySQL*
perl-Crypt-MySQL.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmysqlclient ->
clientele
perl-Crypt-MySQL.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libmysqlclient
-> clientele
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint is ok

Please correct all 'FIX' issues and provide new spec file.

Package is not approved.

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

[Bug 1513733] Review Request: libcircle - A library used to distribute workloads

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1513733



--- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  ---
Mostly good, a few minor issues:

- the build logs show errors about `dot` not being available while doc
  generation. You should include it in the BR and re-build to check that docs
  are built correctly.
- Please use arch-specific requires.
- ldconfig must be run for packages with shared libraries:
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shared_Libraries

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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)",
 "Unknown or generated", "BSD (3 clause)". 39 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/asinha/1513733-libcircle/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/include/mpich-x86_64,
 /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib, /usr/lib64/mpich, /usr/include/openmpi-x86_64,
 /usr/lib64/mpich/lib, /usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/pkgconfig,
 /usr/lib64/mpich/lib/pkgconfig, /usr/lib64/openmpi

These are owned by openmpi/mpich packages, so this looks OK.

[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 624640 bytes in 148 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1520568] Review Request: perl-Crypt-MySQL - Emulate MySQL PASSWORD() function

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520568

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||jples...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jples...@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 1520571] Review Request: perl-Data-Integer - Details of the native integer data type

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520571



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
And thanks for the 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 1520585] Review Request: perl-Test-SQL-Data - Helps running SQL tests : database preparing and result matching

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520585



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eclipseo/packaging/047fc7f/perl-Test-SQL-Data.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/ravada/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00684673-perl-Test-SQL-Data/perl-Test-SQL-Data-0.0.6-1.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 1520570] Review Request: perl-Scalar-String - String aspects of scalars

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520570



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eclipseo/packaging/047fc7f/perl-Scalar-String.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/ravada/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00684671-perl-Scalar-String/perl-Scalar-String-0.003-1.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 1520584] Review Request: perl-MooseX-Types-NetAddr-IP - NetAddr:: IP related types and coercions for Moose

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520584



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eclipseo/packaging/047fc7f/perl-MooseX-Types-NetAddr-IP.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/ravada/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00684670-perl-MooseX-Types-NetAddr-IP/perl-MooseX-Types-NetAddr-IP-0.07-1.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 1520582] Review Request: perl-Mojolicious-Plugin-I18N - Internationalization Plugin for Mojolicious

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520582



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eclipseo/packaging/047fc7f/perl-Mojolicious-Plugin-I18N.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/ravada/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00684669-perl-Mojolicious-Plugin-I18N/perl-Mojolicious-Plugin-I18N-1.6-1.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 1520569] Review Request: perl-Crypt-UnixCrypt_XS - Perl xs interface for a portable traditional crypt function

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520569



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eclipseo/packaging/047fc7f/perl-Crypt-UnixCrypt_XS.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/ravada/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00684668-perl-Crypt-UnixCrypt_XS/perl-Crypt-UnixCrypt_XS-0.11-1.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 1520571] Review Request: perl-Data-Integer - Details of the native integer data type

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520571



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Damn, wrong RPM again.

Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eclipseo/packaging/047fc7f/perl-Data-Integer.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/ravada/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00684655-perl-Data-Integer/perl-Data-Integer-0.006-1.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 1520581] Review Request: perl-Authen-Passphrase - Hashed passwords/ passphrases as objects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520581



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eclipseo/packaging/047fc7f/perl-Authen-Passphrase.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/ravada/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00684666-perl-Authen-Passphrase/perl-Authen-Passphrase-0.008-1.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 1520572] Review Request: perl-Authen-DecHpwd - DEC VMS password hashing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520572



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eclipseo/packaging/047fc7f/perl-Authen-DecHpwd.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/ravada/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00684665-perl-Authen-DecHpwd/perl-Authen-DecHpwd-2.007-1.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 1520571] Review Request: perl-Data-Integer - Details of the native integer data type

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520571



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
I have applied you recommendations, and will update all my other Perl packages
suffering from the same issues accordingly.

Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eclipseo/packaging/047fc7f/perl-Data-Integer.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/ravada/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00684655-perl-Data-Integer/perl-Data-Integer-0.006-1.fc28.noarch.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 1520939] Review Request: rust-c_vec - Structures to wrap C arrays

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520939

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.

 - License: ok
 - Latest version: ok
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint error

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

[Bug 1520931] Review Request: rust-gobject-sys - FFI bindings to libgobject-2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520931

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.

 - License: ok
 - Latest version: ok
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint error

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

[Bug 1520710] Review Request: gawk-json - JSON encoder/decoder for gawk

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520710

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Ok.

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]: 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", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
 generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "FSF All Permissive". 62 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/gawk-json/review-gawk-json/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.
[-]: 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 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: 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.
 Note: No 

[Bug 1520923] Review Request: rust-newtype_derive - Macros for deriving common traits for newtype structures

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520923

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.

 - License: ok
 - Latest version: ok
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint error
 - Patch justified

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

[Bug 1520922] Review Request: extractpdfmark - Extract page mode and named destinations as PDFmark from PDF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520922

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1520915] Review Request: tldr - command line client for tldr

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520915



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Indeed you should use %py3_install. Here the %files if you do:

%files
%license LICENSE
%doc README.md
%{_bindir}/%{name}
%{_bindir}/%{name}.py
%{python3_sitelib}/%{name}.py
%{python3_sitelib}/__pycache__/*.pyc
%{python3_sitelib}/%{name}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info

 - You should then remove the shebang from %{python3_sitelib}/%{name}.py:
   tldr.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/tldr.py /usr/bin/env python

sed -i '1{\@^#!/usr/bin/env python@d}'
%{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}/%{name}.py

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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/tldr/review-tldr/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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package 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]: 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 section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)

[Bug 1520939] New: Review Request: rust-c_vec - Structures to wrap C arrays

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520939

Bug ID: 1520939
   Summary: Review Request: rust-c_vec - Structures to wrap C
arrays
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ignate...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust/rust-c_vec.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust/rust-c_vec-1.3.0-1.fc28.src.rpm
Description: Structures to wrap C arrays.
FAS account: ignatenkobrain

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

[Bug 1520710] Review Request: gawk-json - JSON encoder/decoder for gawk

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520710



--- Comment #3 from Andrew Schorr  ---
Because the code in test/json.awk also serves as an example of how to use the
gawk json extension. Does that make sense?

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

[Bug 1520915] Review Request: tldr - command line client for tldr

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520915



--- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok  ---
I'd rather have that all and just rm /usr/bin/tldr.py and keep the entrypoint,
to stay in sync with upstream.

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

[Bug 1520931] New: Review Request: rust-gobject-sys - FFI bindings to libgobject-2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520931

Bug ID: 1520931
   Summary: Review Request: rust-gobject-sys - FFI bindings to
libgobject-2.0
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ignate...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust/rust-gobject-sys.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust/rust-gobject-sys-0.5.0-1.fc28.src.rpm
Description: FFI bindings to libgobject-2.0.
FAS account: ignatenkobrain

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

[Bug 1520915] Review Request: tldr - command line client for tldr

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520915



--- Comment #2 from Lumír Balhar  ---
Because it installs a lot more than is necessary (Python module, egg-info,
multiple binaries (duplicities) etc.) with the same content.

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

[Bug 1520571] Review Request: perl-Data-Integer - Details of the native integer data type

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520571



--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar  ---
I believe the correct SRPM URL is
.
I will use that for this review.

URL and Source addresses are Ok.
Source archive (SHA-256:
63b77ede3b639ce351525034863629af989abcbff4ab03b14fc4ead461ffa354) is original.
Ok.
Summary verified from lib/Data/Integer.pm. Ok.
Description verified from lib/Data/Integer.pm. Ok.
License verified from lib/Data/Integer.pm and README. Ok.
No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok.

FIX: Write dependency on a Perl language as `perl(:VERSION) >= 5.6' instead as
`perl >= 0:5.006'. The `perl' package uses epoch and it pulls in unneeded
packages.
TODO: Do not package META.json. It's not intended for end users.
TODO: Constrain `perl(Test::Pod)' dependency with `>= 1.00' (t/pod_syn.t:5).

All tests pass. Ok.

$ rpmlint perl-Data-Integer.spec
../SRPMS/perl-Data-Integer-0.006-1.fc28.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Data-Integer-0.006-1.fc28.noarch.rpm 
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.

$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Data-Integer-0.006-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Dec  5 14:09
/usr/share/doc/perl-Data-Integer
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3442 Aug  7 23:08
/usr/share/doc/perl-Data-Integer/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1633 Aug  7 23:08
/usr/share/doc/perl-Data-Integer/META.json
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot  741 Aug  7 23:08
/usr/share/doc/perl-Data-Integer/README
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 8177 Dec  5 14:09
/usr/share/man/man3/Data::Integer.3pm.gz
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Dec  5 14:09
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Data
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot34570 Dec  5 14:09
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Data/Integer.pm
File permissions and layout are Ok.

$ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Data-Integer-0.006-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
| sort -f | uniq -c
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.26.1)
  1 perl(Carp)
  1 perl(Exporter)
  1 perl(integer)
  1 perl(parent)
  1 perl(strict)
  1 perl(warnings)
  1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
Binary requires are Ok.

$ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Data-Integer-0.006-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
| sort -f | uniq -c
  1 perl(Data::Integer) = 0.006
  1 perl-Data-Integer = 0.006-1.fc28
Binary provides are Ok.

$ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Data-Integer-0.006-1.fc28.noarch.rpm 
Binary dependencies resolvable. Ok.

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

Please correct the `FIX' item, consider fixing the `TODO' items and provide a
new spec file.
Resolution: Package NOT approved.

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

[Bug 1520923] New: Review Request: rust-newtype_derive - Macros for deriving common traits for newtype structures

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520923

Bug ID: 1520923
   Summary: Review Request: rust-newtype_derive - Macros for
deriving common traits for newtype structures
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ignate...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust/rust-newtype_derive.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust/rust-newtype_derive-0.1.6-1.fc28.src.rpm
Description: Macros for deriving common traits for newtype structures.
FAS account: ignatenkobrain

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

[Bug 1520922] New: Review Request: extractpdfmark - Extract page mode and named destinations as PDFmark from PDF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520922

Bug ID: 1520922
   Summary: Review Request: extractpdfmark - Extract page mode and
named destinations as PDFmark from PDF
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: f...@inventati.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://pagure.io/rpm-extractpdfmark/blob/master/f/extractpdfmark.spec
SRPM URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fedelibre/extractpdfmark/
Description: Extract page mode and named destinations as PDFmark from PDF
Fedora Account System Username: fedelibre

It's my first Fedora package, so I need a sponsor.

This package is recommended to build another Fedora package, lilypond. It's not
a requirement, but the configure will print a warning if extractpdfmark is
missing.
extractpdfmark was created to reduce substantially the size of LilyPond manuals
PDFs, as it removes duplicate embedded font subsets.

The %description is probably too long. I did a copy from upstream README.
I can cut it down if needed.

Thanks for reviewing

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

[Bug 1520915] Review Request: tldr - command line client for tldr

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520915

Miro Hrončok  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mhron...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Why don't you %py3_isntall?

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

[Bug 1520915] New: Review Request: tldr - command line client for tldr

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520915

Bug ID: 1520915
   Summary: Review Request: tldr - command line client for tldr
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: lbal...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/tldr.spec
SRPM URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/tldr-0.4.1-1.fc27.src.rpm
Description: A Python command line client for tldr - Simplified and
community-driven man pages http://tldr-pages.github.io/.
Fedora Account System Username: lbalhar

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23558310 (not finished yet
due to Koji issues)

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

[Bug 1520863] Review Request: eclipse-sgx - Intel Software Guard Extensions Plug-in for Eclipse

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520863



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/eclipse-sgx

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

[Bug 1430936] Review Request: python-vsc-install - Shared setuptools functions and classes for python libraries developed by UGent 's HPC group

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1430936



--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-vsc-install

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

[Bug 1520571] Review Request: perl-Data-Integer - Details of the native integer data type

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520571

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 1501992] Review Request: opam - Source-based package manager for OCaml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501992



--- Comment #11 from Richard W.M. Jones  ---
(In reply to Ben Rosser from comment #8)
> (I guess I should set up a Rawhide VM, or
> something).

This would be a good idea actually, since Rawhide is now on OCaml 4.06
which has significant changes due to the safe-string default.

You don't actually need to set up a full VM however.  In practice you can
just pick the Rawhide packages for Fedora 27:

# dnf install feora-repos-rawhide

Make sure that ‘enabled=0’ everywhere in /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-rawhide.repo,
otherwise you'll get Rawhide packages for everything which you don't usually
want.

Then do:

# dnf update --best ocaml\* --enablerepo=rawhide

Make sure you check the package selection before confirming installation, in
case
you accidentally upgrade major Rawhide components which (depending on your
tolerance for the bleeding edge) might not be a good idea.

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

[Bug 1520710] Review Request: gawk-json - JSON encoder/decoder for gawk

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520710

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Wyu do you include test files in %doc?

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

[Bug 1520863] Review Request: eclipse-sgx - Intel Software Guard Extensions Plug-in for Eclipse

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520863

Alexander Kurtakov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===


= 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.
 Eclipse plugin part of the tarball is EPL licensed
[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]: 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

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
 Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It
 is pulled in by maven-local

Maven:
[-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
 when building with ant
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used

= 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.
[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.
[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 

[Bug 1520863] Review Request: eclipse-sgx - Intel Software Guard Extensions Plug-in for Eclipse

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520863

Alexander Kurtakov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Alexander Kurtakov  ---
I'll do the 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 1520863] New: Review Request: eclipse-sgx - Intel Software Guard Extensions Plug-in for Eclipse

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520863

Bug ID: 1520863
   Summary: Review Request: eclipse-sgx - Intel Software Guard
Extensions Plug-in for Eclipse
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: mat.bo...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/eclipse-sgx.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/eclipse-sgx-2.0-1.fc28.src.rpm

Description:
The Intel Software Guard Extensions Plug-in enables ISVs to develop Linux
applications with Intel Software Guard Extensions. The plug-in extends the
C/C++ Development tools plug-in to allow ISVs develop secure extensions in
C or C++. The plug-in also allows conversion of an Linux Application project
into an Linux Application project with Software Guard Extensions.

Fedora Account System Username: mbooth

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

[Bug 1431300] Review Request: python-dodgy - Searches for dodgy looking lines in Python code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431300



--- Comment #8 from Miro Hrončok  ---
(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #7)
> Although I'm fine with dropping this since it appears that this might not be
> real dependency of anything like I thought it was.

Dodgy upstream:

 * "This is a very early version with minimal functionality right now, but will
be improved over time." (README)
 * last commit 2 years ago
 * Looking at the code, it literally  just checks if certain strings are in
your code, such as "password", "secret", "<<<", "ssh_rsa_private_key".

I don't think packaging this would bring Fedora much benefit.

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