date:20171211

[Bug 1014544] Review Request: almohawell - Linux Packages Installer and Convertor

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1014544

Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW)
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed||2017-12-11 23:42:52




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449
[Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter
response should be blocking this bug.
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1524504] Review Request: python-gattlib - Library to access Bluetooth LE devices

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1524504



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Corrected:

SRPMS:
https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-gattlib/python-gattlib-0.20150805-1.fc27.src.rpm
SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-gattlib/python-gattlib.spec

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

[Bug 1524206] Review Request: toilet - Display large colorful characters in text mode

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1524206

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Not needed:

rm -rf %{buildroot}


Package Review
==

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


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* do What The Fuck you want
 to Public License (v2)", "do What The Fuck you want to Public License
 (v2)", "Unknown or generated". 40 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/toilet/review-
 toilet/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.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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 61440 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in toilet-
 debuginfo , toilet-debugsource
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.

[Bug 1524245] Review Request: go-hvkvp - Utility to read keyvalue pairs from the Hyper-V Data Exechange service

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1524245

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



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

 - Not useful:

%if ! 0%{?with_bundled}
export GOPATH=$(pwd):%{gopath}
%else
echo "Unable to build from bundled deps. No Godeps nor vendor directory"
exit 1
%endif

 - Remove unused stuff:

# Build with debug info rpm
%global with_debug 1
# Run tests in check section
%global with_check 1

 - What are you trying to do here? You make a directory just to remove it on
the next line:

%build
mkdir -p src/%{import_path}
rmdir src/%{import_path}
ln -s ../../../ src/%{import_path

   It should look like this:

mkdir -p ./_build/src/%{provider}.%{provider_tld}/%{project}
ln -s $(pwd) ./_build/src/%{provider_prefix}
export GOPATH=$(pwd)/_build:%{gopath}

%gobuild -o bin/%{executable_name} %{import_path}/cmd/%{executable_name}

 - Not needed even for EL6/7:

# handle license on el{6,7}: global must be defined after the License field
above
%{!?_licensedir: %global license %doc}

 - Changelog info is not coherent with the header. It should just be:

* Mon Dec 11 2017 Gerard Braad  0.4-0.2

 - Use a more meaningful name for your archive, with:

Source0:   
https://%{provider_prefix}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

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

[Bug 1524504] Review Request: python-gattlib - Library to access Bluetooth LE devices

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1524504

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



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


 - Use Pythonhosted as a source to avoid dealing with the checksum in the URL:

Source0:   
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/g/%{modname}/%{modname}-%{version}.tar.gz

 - Add a comment explaining what the patch is for.

 - Some parts (bluez) is licensed under GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+:

GPL (v2 or later)
-
gattlib-0.20150805/src/bluez/attrib/att.c
gattlib-0.20150805/src/bluez/attrib/att.h
gattlib-0.20150805/src/bluez/attrib/gatt.c
gattlib-0.20150805/src/bluez/attrib/gatt.h
gattlib-0.20150805/src/bluez/attrib/gattrib.c
gattlib-0.20150805/src/bluez/attrib/gattrib.h
gattlib-0.20150805/src/bluez/attrib/utils.c
gattlib-0.20150805/src/bluez/btio/btio.c
gattlib-0.20150805/src/bluez/btio/btio.h
gattlib-0.20150805/src/bluez/lib/uuid.c
gattlib-0.20150805/src/bluez/lib/uuid.h
gattlib-0.20150805/src/bluez/src/log.c
gattlib-0.20150805/src/bluez/src/log.h

LGPL (v2.1 or later)

gattlib-0.20150805/src/bluez/src/shared/crypto.c
gattlib-0.20150805/src/bluez/src/shared/crypto.h
gattlib-0.20150805/src/bluez/src/shared/util.h

  Add it to the license field and add a comment explained which license covers
what part.

 - Grab the license file from the repo and add it to %files

Source1:   
https://bitbucket.org/OscarAcena/pygattlib/raw/a858e8626a93cb9b4ad56f3fb980a6517a0702c6/COPYING

Then:

%prep
%autosetup -n %{modname}-%{version}
cp %{S:1} .

And:

%files -n python2-%{modname}
%license COPYING
%{python2_sitearch}/gattlib*
%{python2_sitearch}/%{modname}*.egg-info/

%files -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{modname}
%license COPYING
%{python3_sitearch}/gattlib*
%{python3_sitearch}/%{modname}*.egg-info/




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.
[!]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
 generated". 34 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-gattlib/review-
 python-gattlib/licensecheck.txt
[!]: 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are

[Bug 1517006] Review Request: vimiv - An image viewer with vim-like keybindings

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1517006



--- Comment #12 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vimiv

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

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-rmtest-0.6.6-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-4ba4b53084

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

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-rmtest-0.6.6-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-3742361d6b

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

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-rmtest-0.6.6-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-8e24053bdc

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

[Bug 1517006] Review Request: vimiv - An image viewer with vim-like keybindings

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1517006



--- Comment #11 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)  ---
Lovely! 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 1523909] Review Request: kernel-tools - Assortment of tools for the Linux kernel

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1523909

Jeremy Cline  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jcl...@redhat.com



--- Comment #3 from Jeremy Cline  ---
kvm_stat should be compatible with Python 3 in v4.15[0] so we could bring back
the python3 shebang patch[1] from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1456722 and drop that "%define
__requires_exclude ^%{_bindir}/python".

I'm happy to deal with that later, but this just made me remember.

[0]
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=9cc5fbbb8ca2178d94f2eeeb2ce675293a3f8ae2
[1]
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kernel/blob/eb93a3ce59422165822f28eae402ae9b5fd10a34/f/force-python3-in-kvm_stat.patch

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

[Bug 1519747] Review request: libdigidocpp - Library offers creating, signing and verification of digitally signed documents, according to XAdES and XML-DSIG standards

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519747



--- Comment #10 from Germano Massullo  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #9)
>  - Why do you use a patch instead of using iconv in %prep?

Because I experienced  technical problems, but I will try your solution

> libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8
> /usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/sample_files.zip

I want to unzip such file and make a separate doc subpackage

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

[Bug 1509290] Review Request: vmod-uuid - uuid module for varnish cache

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509290



--- Comment #15 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Patch should be numbered:

Patch0: vmod-uuid-1.3.fix_obsolete_m4_macro.patch

Package Review
==

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


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: 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: "*No copyright* BSD (2 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Apache
 (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)".
 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/vmod-uuid/review-vmod-uuid/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]: 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]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in vmod-
 uuid-debuginfo , vmod-uuid-debugsource
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[-]: 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.

[Bug 1519747] Review request: libdigidocpp - Library offers creating, signing and verification of digitally signed documents, according to XAdES and XML-DSIG standards

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519747



--- Comment #9 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Why do you use a patch instead of using iconv in %prep?

%prep
%setup -q

iconv --from=ISO-8859-1 --to=UTF-8 AUTHORS > AUTHORS.new && \
touch -r AUTHORS AUTHORS.new && \
mv AUTHORS.new AUTHORS

 - Escape the macros in your changelog entry by doubling the %

 - As mentioned before, COPYING should be included with %license, not %doc

 - Still have utf-8 errors for this 3 files:

libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/AUTHORS
libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/COPYING
libdigidocpp-doc.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/libdigidocpp-doc/sample_files.zip

   Patching doesn't change encoding, see first point.



Package Review
==

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


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


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD (3 clause)",
 "zlib/libpng", "*No copyright* Ms-RL", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "*No
 copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 199 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/libdigidocpp/review-
 libdigidocpp/licensecheck.txt
[!]: 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]: 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 81920 bytes in 10 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]: %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 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.

[Bug 1519323] Review request: qesteidutil - Estonian ID card utility

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519323



--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---

 - Add a comment explaining what the patch is for

 - You never apply the patch in %prep, did you forget that part?

%patch0 -p1

 - Escape the macros in your last changelog entry by doubling the %:

* Thu Nov 30 2017 Germano Massullo  - 3.12.10-1
- forced %%{cmake} . -DBREAKPAD=FALSE because breakpad does not compile with
recent compilers. Source: Raul Metsma (upstream) on IRC chat, which showed me
also
https://github.com/open-eid/qesteidutil/commit/efdfe4c5521f68f206569e71e292a664bb9f46aa
- adjusted doc file names
- removed OpenSSL 1.1 patch because no longer necessary
- replaced make %%{?_smp_mflags} with %%make_build (see package review
#1519323)
- replaced make install DESTDIR=%%{buildroot} with %%make_install (see package
review #1519323)
- removed line %%clean and rm -rf %%{buildroot} (see package review #1519323)
- license file attached to %%license macro, instead of %%doc macro (see package
review #1519323)
- Replaced BuildRequires: openssl-devel with BuildRequires: pkgconfig(openssl)
(see package review #1519323)
- Replaced BuildRequires: qt5-qttools with BuildRequires:
pkgconfig(Qt5Designer) (see package review #1519323)
- Replaced BuildRequires: libpcsclite-devel >= 1.7 with BuildRequires:
pkgconfig(libpcsclite) >= 1.7 (see package review #1519323)


 - Convert this file to UTF-8:

qesteidutil.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/qesteidutil/AUTHORS



Package Review
==

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


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


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated",
 "GPL (v3) LGPL (v3)", "*No copyright* BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD
 like)", "BSD (4 clause)", "curl", "*No copyright* Public domain",
 "Apache (v2.0) BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* Ms-RL", "Unicode
 strict BSD (3 clause)", "Unicode strict", "BSD (3 clause)", "LGPL
 (v2.1 or later)", "FSF All Permissive", "GPL (v3 or later)", "*No
 copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 359 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/qesteidutil/review-
 qesteidutil/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.
[-]: 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 qesteidutil
[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]: 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

[Bug 1268742] Review Request: rubygem-bacon-colored_output - Colored output for Bacon test framework

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #11 from Vít Ondruch  ---
(In reply to Ilya Gradina from comment #10)
> Hi Vit,
> yes bacon not needed.

Thx.

But since rubygem-ast does not need this package for its build, do you still
want to import it into Fedora? If the answer is

1) yes, then please ask for repository and continue with import and build,
because the package was already approved by Roman.
2) no, then close the ticket and forget about this package ;-P

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

[Bug 1268744] Review Request: rubygem-ast - A library for working with Abstract Syntax Trees

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268744



--- Comment #6 from Vít Ondruch  ---
(In reply to Ilya Gradina from comment #5)
LGTM. Could you please ask for repository, import and build the package, since
it was already approved by Roman previously?

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

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #5 from Vít Ondruch  ---
(In reply to Ilya Gradina from comment #3)
> also as rubygem(gem_isolator)(I'll try
> to send soon on review request).

I would not mind if you disabled the specific test case ATM:

~~~
# Requires rubygem(gem_isolator).
mv spec/acceptance/formatter_spec.rb{,.disabled}
~~~

But:

1) Of course having gem_isolator in Fedora is better
2) There are another 4 test failures due to "uninitialized constant Bundler"
errors. It seems it would be better to disable these test cases, otherwise you
will need to fight with all the other dependencies specified in Gemfiles. Not
sure ...

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

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

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

Vít Ondruch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||vondr...@redhat.com



--- Comment #4 from Vít Ondruch  ---
BTW I got "warning: bogus date in %changelog: Tue Dec 05 2018 Ilya Gradina
 - 4.7.3-1"

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

[Bug 1524551] New: Review Request: libsodium23 - The Sodium crypto library

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1524551

Bug ID: 1524551
   Summary: Review Request: libsodium23 - The Sodium crypto
library
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: carl@george.computer
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/carlwgeorge/libsodium23/libsodium23.git/tree/libsodium23.spec?id=9ce115e86719ecdab306f16c50edb070583016cf
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/carlwgeorge/libsodium23/epel-7-x86_64/00686161-libsodium23/libsodium23-1.0.15-1.el7.centos.src.rpm
Description: newer version of libsodium for epel7 only
Fedora Account System Username: carlwgeorge

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

[Bug 1517006] Review Request: vimiv - An image viewer with vim-like keybindings

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1517006

Christoph Junghans  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #10 from Christoph Junghans  ---
(In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #9)
> (In reply to Christoph Junghans from comment #8)
> > Thanks @Sergey for looking for it! I had a look as well!
> > 
> > 
> > Summary:
> > ===
> > I found (nitpicks):
> > - there are tests in tests/, can we run these in %check?
> 
> The tests use Xvrb, and from the looks of it, it requires X running on the
> box? I can't manage that on the Fedora builders.
Thank for the explanation!

> New spec/srpm:
> Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/vimiv/vimiv.spec
> SRPM URL:
> https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/vimiv/vimiv-0.9.1-4.fc27.src.rpm
> 
> * Sun Dec 10 2017 Ankur Sinha  - 0.9.1-4
> - Remove tests - Xvfb seems to require root access and X
> 
> * Sun Dec 10 2017 Ankur Sinha  - 0.9.1-3
> - Add tests and other corrections based on rhbz #1517006
> - update-desktop-database
> - preserve timestamps
> 
> Cheers!
> Ankur
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 1208911] Review Request: doublecmd - Twin-panel (commander-style) file manager

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208911



--- Comment #31 from Vít Ondruch  ---
(In reply to Daniel Laskowski from comment #29)
> Double Commander is still in development - new version 0.8.0 arrived:)
> https://sourceforge.net/p/doublecmd/news/2017/12/double-commander-080-beta-
> released/
> 
> Sadly it still is not available in Fedora repos... It is because of
> commercial Total Commander dependencies?

It has nothing to do with TC IMO. The comment 1 and comment 3 explains my
concerns.

But generally, somebody would have to be dedicated enough to get it into
Fedora.

> Why not put it in rpmfusion.org repo?

It is available in Copr [1], but even there it needs some maintenance ...


[1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/vondruch/doublecmd/

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

[Bug 1508950] Review Request: eccodes - a library for decoding and encoding WMO data formats

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1508950



--- Comment #4 from Jos de Kloe  ---
just for information. Upstream issues:
https://software.ecmwf.int/issues/browse/SUP-2271
https://software.ecmwf.int/issues/browse/SUP-2272
have now been made publicly accessible.

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

[Bug 1208911] Review Request: doublecmd - Twin-panel (commander-style) file manager

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208911



--- Comment #30 from Kevin Kofler  ---
The main reason is that it is written in FPC/Lazarus, which is not a mainstream
programming language, and which is fairly poorly maintained upstream. There are
bindings (and corresponding backends for the cross-toolkit widget abstraction)
only for Qt 4 and GTK+ 2, which are both deprecated. The GTK+ 3 backend is
still in alpha stage, there is no mention of a Qt 5 or GTK+ 4 backend at all.
So essentially, comment #27 still applies, 2 years later (which also means that
the code has become even more outdated).

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

[Bug 1524504] Review Request: python-gattlib - Library to access Bluetooth LE devices

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1524504

Gwyn Ciesla  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1523930




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1523930
[Bug 1523930] pybluez : ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'gattlib'
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1524504] New: Review Request: python-gattlib - Library to access Bluetooth LE devices

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1524504

Bug ID: 1524504
   Summary: Review Request: python-gattlib - Library to access
Bluetooth LE devices
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: limburg...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Description: Library to access Bluetooth LE devices

SRPMS:
https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-gattlib/python-gattlib-0.20150805-0.fc27.src.rpm
SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/python-gattlib/python-gattlib.spec

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

[Bug 1518262] Review Request: nodejs-yarn - Fast, reliable, and secure dependency management

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1518262



--- Comment #6 from Zuzana Svetlikova  ---
That would be the case if I were building yarn from GH sources. In this case I
just install the (already built) tarball.

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

[Bug 1208911] Review Request: doublecmd - Twin-panel (commander-style) file manager

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208911

Daniel Laskowski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||dannie...@gmail.com



--- Comment #29 from Daniel Laskowski  ---
Double Commander is still in development - new version 0.8.0 arrived:)
https://sourceforge.net/p/doublecmd/news/2017/12/double-commander-080-beta-released/

Sadly it still is not available in Fedora repos... It is because of commercial
Total Commander dependencies? Why not put it in rpmfusion.org repo?

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

[Bug 1509290] Review Request: vmod-uuid - uuid module for varnish cache

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509290



--- Comment #14 from Ingvar Hagelund  ---
I added a github issue to the original branch,
https://github.com/Sharecare/libvmod-uuid/issues/8 , and have asked my upstream
at https://github.com/otto-de/libvmod-uuid to look into it.

By the way, the original Sharecare branch seems quite dead, which is why I use
the otto-de fork. It is actively maintained.

Updated specfile and srpm:

Spec URL: https://ingvar.fedorapeople.org/varnish/vmod-uuid.spec
SRPM URL: https://ingvar.fedorapeople.org/varnish/vmod-uuid-1.3-4.fc26.src.rpm

(I did not update the release number for this change)

Ingvar

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

[Bug 794793] Review Request: openssl-ibmpkcs11 - An openssl PKCS#11 engine

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=794793



--- Comment #11 from IBM Bug Proxy  ---
--- Comment From m...@de.ibm.com 2017-12-11 06:03 EDT---
There is a new version of  OpenSSL-ibmpkcs11 available upstream
You can easily grab this release in tarball format on Github:
https://github.com/opencryptoki/openssl-ibmpkcs11/archive/v1.0.1.tar.gz

Please integrate into Fedora

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

[Bug 1517243] Review Request: grace - Numerical Data Processing and Visualization Tool

2017-12-11 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1517243



--- Comment #7 from RudraB  ---
OK, but since the maintainer is not responding to the bug, what is the best bet
now? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1517243#c1 ?

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

[Bug 1014544] Review Request: almohawell - Linux Packages Installer and Convertor

[Bug 1524504] Review Request: python-gattlib - Library to access Bluetooth LE devices

[Bug 1524206] Review Request: toilet - Display large colorful characters in text mode

[Bug 1524245] Review Request: go-hvkvp - Utility to read keyvalue pairs from the Hyper-V Data Exechange service

[Bug 1524504] Review Request: python-gattlib - Library to access Bluetooth LE devices

[Bug 1517006] Review Request: vimiv - An image viewer with vim-like keybindings

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

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

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

[Bug 1517006] Review Request: vimiv - An image viewer with vim-like keybindings

[Bug 1523909] Review Request: kernel-tools - Assortment of tools for the Linux kernel

[Bug 1519747] Review request: libdigidocpp - Library offers creating, signing and verification of digitally signed documents, according to XAdES and XML-DSIG standards

[Bug 1509290] Review Request: vmod-uuid - uuid module for varnish cache

[Bug 1519747] Review request: libdigidocpp - Library offers creating, signing and verification of digitally signed documents, according to XAdES and XML-DSIG standards

[Bug 1519323] Review request: qesteidutil - Estonian ID card utility

[Bug 1268742] Review Request: rubygem-bacon-colored_output - Colored output for Bacon test framework

[Bug 1268744] Review Request: rubygem-ast - A library for working with Abstract Syntax Trees

[Bug 1268696] Review Request: rubygem-guard-rspec - Guard gem for RSpec

[Bug 1268696] Review Request: rubygem-guard-rspec - Guard gem for RSpec

[Bug 1524551] New: Review Request: libsodium23 - The Sodium crypto library

[Bug 1517006] Review Request: vimiv - An image viewer with vim-like keybindings

[Bug 1208911] Review Request: doublecmd - Twin-panel (commander-style) file manager

[Bug 1508950] Review Request: eccodes - a library for decoding and encoding WMO data formats

[Bug 1208911] Review Request: doublecmd - Twin-panel (commander-style) file manager

[Bug 1524504] Review Request: python-gattlib - Library to access Bluetooth LE devices

[Bug 1524504] New: Review Request: python-gattlib - Library to access Bluetooth LE devices

[Bug 1518262] Review Request: nodejs-yarn - Fast, reliable, and secure dependency management

[Bug 1208911] Review Request: doublecmd - Twin-panel (commander-style) file manager

[Bug 1509290] Review Request: vmod-uuid - uuid module for varnish cache

[Bug 794793] Review Request: openssl-ibmpkcs11 - An openssl PKCS#11 engine

[Bug 1517243] Review Request: grace - Numerical Data Processing and Visualization Tool

31 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information