[Bug 1528781] Review Request: mpfr - multiple-precision floating-point computations [needs sponsor]

2017-12-23 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1528781

James Paul Turner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)




Referenced Bugs:

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

[Bug 1528781] New: Review Request: mpfr - multiple-precision floating-point computations [needs sponsor]

2017-12-23 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1528781

Bug ID: 1528781
   Summary: Review Request: mpfr - multiple-precision
floating-point computations [needs sponsor]
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jamesturner...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://jamesturner246.fedorapeople.org/mpfr-3.1.6/mpfr.spec

SRPM URL:
https://jamesturner246.fedorapeople.org/mpfr-3.1.6/mpfr-3.1.6-1.fc28.src.rpm

Description: [first package - require sponsor] A C library for
multiple-precision floating-point computations.

Fedora Account System Username: jamesturner246


This is the version 3.1.16 update of the MPFR arbitrary-precision
floating-point arithmetic library. Version 3.1.16 brings many bugfixes (see
http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-3.1.5/#fixed), and an improved manual.

I have also fixed a long-standing encoding problem with the Texinfo manual,
initially reported Jan 2016 (see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1299649). The package also contains
the latest patches for this version, and some streamlining of the spec file.

Due to this being my first package submission for Fedora, I would like to
request sponsorship. I have tried to contact the original maintainer of MPFR,
Pavel Cahyna (pcah...@redhat.com), but have had no response, so would like to
volunteer myself as a new maintainer. However, it is in my interests that this
package remains updated and functional in Fedora.

Regarding my employment and experience: I am the author of MPFA
(https://github.com/jamesturner246/mpfa): a multi-precision range analysis
library, which makes heavy use of the MPFR package in review. I am studying a
PhD thesis in numerical methods at University of Sussex, but am quite familiar
with C programming, Git, Fedora and GNU buildsystems used in industry.

Here is a link to the last modified Koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23871092

Many thanks, and look forward to hearing from you.

James Paul Turner.
jamesturner...@fedoraproject.org

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

[Bug 1520150] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-disconnect-wifi - GNOME Shell Extension Disconnect Wifi by kgshank

2017-12-23 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520150



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
gnome-shell-extension-disconnect-wifi-17-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora
EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in
this bug report.

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

[Bug 1528393] Review Request: urlscan - Extract and browse the URLs contained in an email ( urlview replacement)

2017-12-23 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1528393

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
urlscan-0.8.6-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-760127997c

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

[Bug 1528612] Review Request: librs232 - Library for serial communications over RS-232 with Lua bindings

2017-12-23 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1528612

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

 - Typo in the Patch0 name: marco → macro

Patch0:
https://github.com/%{the_owner}/%{name}/commit/08ba5b7178f4cb2a0185617c13f11898fd0c8e6c.patch#/%{name}-%{version}-replace-obsoleted-macro.patch


Package approved.


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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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)", "LGPL (v2.1)", "Unknown or generated". 21
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/librs232/review-librs232/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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]:

[Bug 1528598] Review Request: python-simplebayes - A memory-based, optional-persistence naïve bayesian text classifier

2017-12-23 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1528598

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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


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". 15 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/python-simplebayes/review-python-
 simplebayes/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: 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
 python2-simplebayes , python3-simplebayes
[?]: 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

[Bug 1528185] Review Request: js-jquery-ui - jQuery user interface

2017-12-23 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1528185

Mattias Ellert  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed||2017-12-23 11:03:01



--- Comment #1 from Mattias Ellert  ---
This is apparently already packaged using with the name
xstatic-jquery-ui-common.

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

[Bug 1519324] Review Request: onedrive - OneDrive Free Client written in D

2017-12-23 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519324

Robin Lee  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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