[Bug 1539276] Review Request: rust-threadpool - Thread pool for running a number of jobs on a fixed set of worker threads

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539276

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
LGTM now

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

[Bug 1331923] Review Request: python-jinja2-27 - EPEL6 only jinja-2.7 package

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331923



--- Comment #5 from Reto Gantenbein  ---
As this updated still didn't make it into the stable repositories so far, I
provided a COPR repository with a drop-in replacement of a newer Jinja2 for
people to use:

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ganto/python-jinja2-26/

So far I avoided to change the package name to the '-27' suffix as this would
require a change to the Ansible package too.

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

[Bug 1540833] Review Request: racket - programming language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540833



--- Comment #2 from David Benoit  ---
Thanks for the feedback!  I have addressed those items, and here are the
updated components:

SRPM:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dbenoit/racket/fedora-27-x86_64/00708107-racket/racket-6.12-1.fc27.src.rpm

SPEC:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dbenoit/racket/fedora-27-x86_64/00708107-racket/racket.spec

Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24633595

%changelog
* Thu Feb 1 2018 David Benoit  - 6.12
- Fix duplication of object files
- Add version to racket-devel requirements
- Remove base package as a dependency of racket-doc
- Remove Groups tag

-- 
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 1537805] Review Request: python-josepy - JOSE protocol implementation in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1537805

James Hogarth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from James Hogarth  ---
Licensing is fine.

Uses standard python spec template.

Package approved

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

[Bug 1540726] Review request: bettercap - A complete, modular, portable and easily extensible MITM framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540726



--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
(In reply to Germano Massullo from comment #3)
> https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/bettercap/rev1/bettercap.
> spec
> https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/bettercap/rev1/bettercap-2.
> 0.0-0.1.fc27.src.rpm
> 
> 
> I have changed
> 
> BuildRequires:  golang(github.com/jteeuwen/go-bindata)
> to
> BuildRequires:  go-bindata
> 
> and
> %setup -q -n %{name}-%{gittag}
> to
> %setup -q -n bettercap-ng-%{commit}
> 
> now mock returns errors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> main.go:7:2: cannot find package "github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/core"
> in any of:
> /usr/lib/golang/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/core (from
> $GOROOT)
>
> /builddir/build/BUILD/bettercap-ng-eb1a53efa3171aefed0ec9766d8c5047bd0df289/
> _build/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/core (from $GOPATH)
> /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/core
> main.go:8:2: cannot find package "github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/log" in
> any of:
> /usr/lib/golang/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/log (from
> $GOROOT)
>
> /builddir/build/BUILD/bettercap-ng-eb1a53efa3171aefed0ec9766d8c5047bd0df289/
> _build/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/log (from $GOPATH)
> /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/log
> main.go:9:2: cannot find package
> "github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/modules" in any of:
> /usr/lib/golang/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/modules (from
> $GOROOT)
>
> /builddir/build/BUILD/bettercap-ng-eb1a53efa3171aefed0ec9766d8c5047bd0df289/
> _build/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/modules (from $GOPATH)
> /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/modules
> main.go:10:2: cannot find package
> "github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/session" in any of:
> /usr/lib/golang/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/session (from
> $GOROOT)
>
> /builddir/build/BUILD/bettercap-ng-eb1a53efa3171aefed0ec9766d8c5047bd0df289/
> _build/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/session (from $GOPATH)
> /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/session

Your Gopath is probably fcked up. Yes I see, fix your header:

%global providergithub
%global provider_tldcom
%global project  evilsocket
%global repo bettercap-ng
%global provider_prefix %{provider}.%{provider_tld}/%{project}

   Then fix %build:

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

%gobuild -o %{name} .

-- 
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 1540726] Review request: bettercap - A complete, modular, portable and easily extensible MITM framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540726



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - go-bindata only provides a binary, not a library, and only the binary is
needed for your package. See https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/go-bindata

   So just replace golang(github.com/jteeuwen/go-bindata) with "go-bindata"

   I'm not even sure you even need it since it's only used in the make script
that you don't use anyway. It seems to be used only by the developer. It's safe
to remove imho.

 - Where did you get your Version:2.0.0 from?

According to
https://github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/blob/master/core/banner.go the
latest version is 0.9.

You should ask upstream to tag its release, it would be easier for packaging.

 - This import path seems dubious:

 %global import_path code.google.com/p/go.net

It's not needed for packaging a binary anyway.

 - This:

%doc
README.md

%license
LICENSE.md

   should be inline, they are not new sections of the SPEC:

%files
%doc README.md
%license LICENSE.md
%{_bindir}/%{name}

-- 
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 1540726] Review request: bettercap - A complete, modular, portable and easily extensible MITM framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540726



--- Comment #3 from Germano Massullo  ---
https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/bettercap/rev1/bettercap.spec
https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/bettercap/rev1/bettercap-2.0.0-0.1.fc27.src.rpm


I have changed

BuildRequires:  golang(github.com/jteeuwen/go-bindata)
to
BuildRequires:  go-bindata

and
%setup -q -n %{name}-%{gittag}
to
%setup -q -n bettercap-ng-%{commit}

now mock returns errors




main.go:7:2: cannot find package "github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/core" in
any of:
/usr/lib/golang/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/core (from
$GOROOT)
   
/builddir/build/BUILD/bettercap-ng-eb1a53efa3171aefed0ec9766d8c5047bd0df289/_build/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/core
(from $GOPATH)
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/core
main.go:8:2: cannot find package "github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/log" in
any of:
/usr/lib/golang/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/log (from
$GOROOT)
   
/builddir/build/BUILD/bettercap-ng-eb1a53efa3171aefed0ec9766d8c5047bd0df289/_build/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/log
(from $GOPATH)
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/log
main.go:9:2: cannot find package "github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/modules"
in any of:
/usr/lib/golang/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/modules (from
$GOROOT)
   
/builddir/build/BUILD/bettercap-ng-eb1a53efa3171aefed0ec9766d8c5047bd0df289/_build/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/modules
(from $GOPATH)
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/modules
main.go:10:2: cannot find package "github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/session"
in any of:
/usr/lib/golang/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/session (from
$GOROOT)
   
/builddir/build/BUILD/bettercap-ng-eb1a53efa3171aefed0ec9766d8c5047bd0df289/_build/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/session
(from $GOPATH)
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/session

-- 
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 1540749] Review Request: python3-pyusb - Python 3 bindings for libusb

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540749



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-pyusb-1.0.2-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-44e50f84b2

-- 
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 1540749] Review Request: python3-pyusb - Python 3 bindings for libusb

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540749

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1540726] Review request: bettercap - A complete, modular, portable and easily extensible MITM framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540726



--- Comment #2 from Germano Massullo  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
>  - You should link directly to the RAW SPEC and provide a SRPM too

https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/bettercap/bettercap.spec
https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/bettercap/bettercap-2.0.0-0.1.fc27.src.rpm

>  - This SPEC file has an empty Source0 so I can't do anything with it.

Done

>  - LICENSE.md is not installed in %files, nor is README.md with %doc

LICENSE.md has been placed under %license
README.md has been placed under %doc

>  - %changelog is empty

Done 

>  - It's "compiler(go-compiler)" with no "s" at compiler

Thank you, it was a typo into
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Go#Go_Language_Architectures
which I just corrected

During mock process, I obtain error message
No matching package to install: 'golang(github.com/jteeuwen/go-bindata)'

-- 
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 1540749] Review Request: python3-pyusb - Python 3 bindings for libusb

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540749



--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3-pyusb

-- 
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 1538341] Review Request: python-testinfra - unit testing for server state

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538341

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Ok, package approved then.

-- 
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 1540314] Review Request: ghc-listsafe - Safe wrappers for partial list functions, supporting MonadThrow

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540314



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
ghc-listsafe-0.1.0.1-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-55ac90e798

-- 
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 1540314] Review Request: ghc-listsafe - Safe wrappers for partial list functions, supporting MonadThrow

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540314

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1489983] Review Request: llvm4.0 - Compatibility package for LLVM 4.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489983

Tom Stellard  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2018-02-01 17:22:30



-- 
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 1539831] Review Request: nheko - Desktop client for the Matrix protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539831

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  ---
 - Not good:

and Apache License and CC-BY-4.0

You can find the list of license shorthand here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses

For Apache it is "ASL 2.0" and for CC-BY-4.0, it is "CC-BY".


I trust you'll fix this before import. Package approved.

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

[Bug 1538341] Review Request: python-testinfra - unit testing for server state

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538341



--- Comment #4 from Brett Lentz  ---
Thanks for the help with the spec. I've taken your spec, built it, and checked
it with rpmlint. It looks fine to me, so here's my updated versions:

Spec URL:
https://wakko666.fedorapeople.org/python-testinfra/python-testinfra.spec
SRPM URL:
https://wakko666.fedorapeople.org/python-testinfra/python2-testinfra-1.10.1-1.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 1539831] Review Request: nheko - Desktop client for the Matrix protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539831



--- Comment #3 from Vitaly Zaitsev  ---
> Please consider providing an Appdata file. See: 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData

Added patch with AppData and opened pull request:
https://github.com/mujx/nheko/pull/224

> You're distributing fonts with some licenses not mentioned in License:

Fixed.

> Where is gen_libs.sh? It should be included as a Source too if it used to 
> generate the tarball.

Added.

> The correct shorthand for Boost Software License is not "BSL 1.0" but "Boost"

Fixed.

> Requires: hicolor-icon-theme

Added.

Spec URL: https://github.com/EasyCoding/nheko/raw/master/nheko.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/xvitaly/matrix/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00708056-nheko/nheko-0.1.0-15.20180131git96e9971.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 1540749] Review Request: python3-pyusb - Python 3 bindings for libusb

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540749

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Ok, package approved.

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

[Bug 1540314] Review Request: ghc-listsafe - Safe wrappers for partial list functions, supporting MonadThrow

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540314



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-listsafe

-- 
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 1540875] Review Request: python-pyModBusTCP - A simple Modbus/ TCP library for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540875

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  ---
 - SPEC name should be python-pyModbusTCP.spec: no capitalization on the "b"

Package otherwise 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
 upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
 licenses manually.
[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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
 Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 python2-pyModbusTCP , python3-pyModbusTCP
[?]: 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
 

[Bug 1540749] Review Request: python3-pyusb - Python 3 bindings for libusb

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540749



--- Comment #2 from Orion Poplawski  ---
Thanks for the review.

Spec URL: https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python3-pyusb.spec
SRPM URL:
https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python3-pyusb-1.0.2-2.el7.src.rpm

* Thu Feb 1 2018 Orion Poplawski  - 1.0.2-2
- Add BR on setuptools
- Be more explicit in %%files

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

[Bug 1520723] Review Request: llvm5.0 - Compatibility package for LLVM 5.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520723

Tom Stellard  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2018-02-01 15:15:33



-- 
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 1520753] Review Request: clang5.0 - Compatibility package for Clang 5.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1520753

Tom Stellard  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2018-02-01 15:15:27



-- 
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 1507164] Review Request: clang4.0 - Compatibility package for clang 4.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507164

Tom Stellard  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Last Closed||2018-02-01 15:15:05



--- Comment #1 from Tom Stellard  ---
This isn't needed now that LLVM 6 is about to be released.

-- 
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 1540749] Review Request: python3-pyusb - Python 3 bindings for libusb

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540749

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Please be more specific in %files

%{python3_sitelib}/usb
%{python3_sitelib}/%{srcname}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info

 - Build error:

+ /usr/bin/python3.4 setup.py build '--executable=/usr/bin/python3.4 -s'
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "setup.py", line 31, in 
from setuptools import setup
ImportError: No module named 'setuptools'

   Guess you need to add:

BuildRequires:  python%{python3_pkgversion}-setuptools




Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (unspecified)", "Unknown or generated".
 36 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/python3-pyusb/review-
 python3-pyusb/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]: 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:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: 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 

[Bug 1519749] Review request: qdigidoc - Estonian digital signature application

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519749

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
qdigidoc-3.13.4-1.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-2018-569f4b05f7

-- 
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 1540726] Review request: bettercap - A complete, modular, portable and easily extensible MITM framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540726

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - You should link directly to the RAW SPEC and provide a SRPM too

 - This SPEC file has an empty Source0 so I can't do anything with it.

 - LICENSE.md is not installed in %files, nor is README.md with %doc

 - %changelog is empty

 - It's "compiler(go-compiler)" with no "s" at compiler


You should try to build the package in mock first before posting a Review
request with half-assed 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 1540553] Review Request: glusterd2- new management daemon for GlusterFS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540553

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - You're missing %{?dist} in Release

 - Doesn't this service require its own user and group?

 - Don't use:

Requires(post): systemd
Requires(preun): systemd
Requires(postun): systemd

   Use the provided macro instead:

%{?systemd_requires}
BuildRequires: systemd

 - Also building with vendored is a no go, you will need to unbundle each
dependency in vendor. Yes, it's gonna be a big task. Use gofed to do most of
the work.

-- 
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 1539831] Review Request: nheko - Desktop client for the Matrix protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539831

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Please add a comment above each patch to explain what they're for.

 - Please consider providing an Appdata file. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData

 - You're distributing fonts with some licenses not mentioned in License:

*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)

nheko-96e99710fcc4ef5c24604f34029cc35f9737705a/resources/fonts/OpenSans/LICENSE.txt

CC by (v4.0)

nheko-96e99710fcc4ef5c24604f34029cc35f9737705a/resources/fonts/EmojiOne/emojione-android.ttf

  Add them to the list and add them to the license breakdown comment.

 - Where is gen_libs.sh? It should be included as a Source too if it used to
generate the tarball.

 - The correct shorthand for Boost Software License is not "BSL 1.0" but
"Boost"

 - You must add:

Requires:   hicolor-icon-theme

   to own the hicolor directories.



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.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "CC by (v4.0)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated",
 "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSL (v1.0)", "GPL (v2)", "*No copyright* Apache
 (v2.0)". 278 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/nheko/review-
 nheko/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners:
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/512x512/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/512x512,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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) 

[Bug 1540599] Review Request: rust-remove_dir_all - Safe, reliable implementation of remove_dir_all

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540599

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2018-02-01 13:31:50



-- 
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 1539271] Review Request: rust-streaming-stats - Experimental crate for computing basic statistics on streams

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539271

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2018-02-01 13:31:26



-- 
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 1540422] Review Request: ghc-typed-process - Run external processes, with strong typing of streams

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540422

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 =

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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-typed-process/review-ghc-typed-
 process/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.
[-]: 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 378880 bytes in 17 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains

[Bug 1529705] Review Request: adapta-backgrounds - A wallpaper collection for adapta-project

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529705

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2018-01-10 17:23:35 |2018-02-01 12:15:23



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
adapta-backgrounds-0.5.3.1-1.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 1538076] Review Request: insect - A scientific calculator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538076

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Package approved.

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

[Bug 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134



--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bouncycastle1.58. You may commit to the
branch "el6" in about 10 minutes.

-- 
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 1433798] Review Request: nodejs-xdg-basedir - Get XDG Base Directory paths

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433798



--- Comment #4 from Timothée Floure  ---
Since the fedora-active-user [0] script shows that @hhorak is still active, I
will wait a few more days for him to react.

[0] https://github.com/pypingou/fedora-active-user

-- 
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 1540314] Review Request: ghc-listsafe - Safe wrappers for partial list functions, supporting MonadThrow

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540314

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 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]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 3 files
 have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-listsafe/review-ghc-
 listsafe/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.
[-]: 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 143360 bytes in 14 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains

[Bug 1539920] Review Request: rocm-runtime - ROCm runtime driver for AMD compute

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539920



--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
The maintainer of hsakmt hasn't been active in over a year according to the
FAS, you might have to launch a non-responsive maintainer procedure if there is
no news from him.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers

-- 
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 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134

Mattias Ellert  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Component|Package Review  |Package Review
Version|rawhide |el6
Product|Fedora  |Fedora EPEL



-- 
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 1538076] Review Request: insect - A scientific calculator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538076



--- Comment #2 from Timothée Floure  ---
Here are the slightly modified specfile and SRPM.

Spec URL: https://fnux.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/insect/insect.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fnux.fedorapeople.org/pkg-reviews/insect/insect-5.0.0-2.fc26.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 1538076] Review Request: insect - A scientific calculator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538076
Bug 1538076 depends on bug 1538069, which changed state.

Bug 1538069 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-historic-readline - A JavaScript 
library extending the node readline module to save history to file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538069

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE



-- 
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 1538069] Review Request: nodejs-historic-readline - A JavaScript library extending the node readline module to save history to file

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538069

Timothée Floure  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2018-02-01 11:34:58



-- 
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 1538076] Review Request: insect - A scientific calculator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538076
Bug 1538076 depends on bug 1538067, which changed state.

Bug 1538067 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-decimal-js - A Javascript library 
for arbitrary-precision arithmetic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538067

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE



-- 
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 1538067] Review Request: nodejs-decimal-js - A Javascript library for arbitrary-precision arithmetic

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538067

Timothée Floure  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2018-02-01 11:33:47



-- 
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 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Package approved then.

-- 
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 1539920] Review Request: rocm-runtime - ROCm runtime driver for AMD compute

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539920



--- Comment #5 from Tom Stellard  ---
The pull request for hsakmt is here:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hsakmt/pull-request/1

If you add this copr repo to your mock config, then it should build:

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/tstellar/rocm-1.6-upstream/repo/fedora-rawhide/tstellar-rocm-1.6-upstream-fedora-rawhide.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 1433798] Review Request: nodejs-xdg-basedir - Get XDG Base Directory paths

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433798



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
@Timothée: if the submitter doesn't answer you can launch a stalled review
process, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
Then you can resubmit a review on your own for this package.

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

[Bug 1539920] Review Request: rocm-runtime - ROCm runtime driver for AMD compute

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539920



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
You should also ask the maintainer of hsakmt to update its package because the
version included in Fedora is too old. I don't even know how you manage to
build it before proposing this review.

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hsakmt

-- 
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 1539920] Review Request: rocm-runtime - ROCm runtime driver for AMD compute

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539920



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 Also use the version macro in Source0:

Source0:   
https://github.com/RadeonOpenCompute/ROCR-Runtime/archive/roc-%{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 1539920] Review Request: rocm-runtime - ROCm runtime driver for AMD compute

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539920

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Latest version seems to be roc-1.7.0
https://github.com/RadeonOpenCompute/ROCR-Runtime/releases

 - I can't build it in Mock:

[ 17%] Building CXX object
CMakeFiles/hsa-runtime64.dir/core/runtime/amd_cpu_agent.cpp.o
/usr/lib64/ccache/c++  -DHAVE_MEMFD_CREATE -DHSA_EXPORT=1
-DHSA_EXPORT_FINALIZER=1 -DHSA_EXPORT_IMAGES=1 -DLITTLEENDIAN_CPU=1
-DROCR_BUILD_ID=1.0.0- -D__linux__ -Dhsa_runtime64_EXPORTS
-I/builddir/build/BUILD/ROCR-Runtime-roc-1.6.1/src
-I/builddir/build/BUILD/ROCR-Runtime-roc-1.6.1/src/inc
-I/builddir/build/BUILD/ROCR-Runtime-roc-1.6.1/src/core/inc
-I/builddir/build/BUILD/ROCR-Runtime-roc-1.6.1/src/libamdhsacode  -Wall
-std=c++11  -fpic -Wl,--unresolved-symbols=ignore-in-shared-libs
-fno-strict-aliasing -m64  -msse -msse2 -Werror -fexceptions -fno-rtti
-fvisibility=hidden -Wno-error=sign-compare -Wno-sign-compare
-Wno-write-strings -Wno-conversion-null -fno-math-errno -fno-threadsafe-statics
-fmerge-all-constants -fms-extensions -Wno-error=comment -Wno-comment
-Wno-error=pointer-arith -Wno-pointer-arith -Wno-error=unused-variable
-Wno-error=unused-but-set-variable -Wno-error=unused-function -O2 -g -DNDEBUG
-fPIC   -D __STDC_LIMIT_MACROS -D __STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS -D
__STDC_FORMAT_MACROS -D HSA_DEPRECATED= -o
CMakeFiles/hsa-runtime64.dir/core/runtime/amd_cpu_agent.cpp.o -c
/builddir/build/BUILD/ROCR-Runtime-roc-1.6.1/src/core/runtime/amd_cpu_agent.cpp
make[2]: Leaving directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/ROCR-Runtime-roc-1.6.1/build'
In file included from
/builddir/build/BUILD/ROCR-Runtime-roc-1.6.1/src/core/runtime/amd_gpu_agent.cpp:43:
/builddir/build/BUILD/ROCR-Runtime-roc-1.6.1/src/core/inc/amd_gpu_agent.h:50:10:
fatal error: hsakmt.h: No such file or directory
 #include "hsakmt.h"
  ^~
compilation terminated.
make[2]: *** [CMakeFiles/hsa-runtime64.dir/build.make:210:
CMakeFiles/hsa-runtime64.dir/core/runtime/amd_gpu_agent.cpp.o] Error 1
make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs
In file included from
/builddir/build/BUILD/ROCR-Runtime-roc-1.6.1/src/core/runtime/amd_cpu_agent.cpp:43:
/builddir/build/BUILD/ROCR-Runtime-roc-1.6.1/src/core/inc/amd_cpu_agent.h:50:10:
fatal error: hsakmt.h: No such file or directory
 #include "hsakmt.h"
  ^~
compilation terminated.
make[2]: *** [CMakeFiles/hsa-runtime64.dir/build.make:186:
CMakeFiles/hsa-runtime64.dir/core/runtime/amd_cpu_agent.cpp.o] Error 1

See full log on Koji:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24623516

-- 
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 1538658] Review Request: python-anyconfig - common API to load and dump configuration files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538658



--- Comment #6 from Satoru SATOH  ---
Troy-san, thanks a lot for your comments!

(In reply to Troy Curtis from comment #3)
> The version suffixes are for the corresponding python version.
> 
> %{python2_version} and %{python3_version} already have the minor version,
> for instance 2.7, and 3.6.  So the move would be:
> 
> mv %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/anyconfig_cli
> %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/anyconfig_cli-%{python3_version}

I guess that I made so already by the previous commits I mentioned:

ssato@localhost% rpm -ql python2-anyconfig | grep anyconfig_cli |
LC_ALL=en_US.UTF-8 xargs ls -l
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root   17 Feb  1 23:04 /usr/bin/anyconfig_cli ->
anyconfig_cli-2.7
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root   17 Feb  1 23:04 /usr/bin/anyconfig_cli-2 ->
anyconfig_cli-2.7
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root  400 Feb  1 23:04 /usr/bin/anyconfig_cli-2.7
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root   22 Feb  1 23:04
/usr/share/man/man1/anyconfig_cli.1.gz -> anyconfig_cli-2.7.1.gz
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root   22 Feb  1 23:04
/usr/share/man/man1/anyconfig_cli-2.1.gz -> anyconfig_cli-2.7.1.gz
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 1724 May  3  2017
/usr/share/man/man1/anyconfig_cli-2.7.1.gz
ssato@localhost% rpm -ql python3-anyconfig | grep anyconfig_cli |
LC_ALL=en_US.UTF-8 xargs ls -l
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root   17 Feb  1 23:04 /usr/bin/anyconfig_cli-3 ->
anyconfig_cli-3.6
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root  400 Feb  1 23:04 /usr/bin/anyconfig_cli-3.6
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root   22 Feb  1 23:04
/usr/share/man/man1/anyconfig_cli-3.1.gz -> anyconfig_cli-3.6.1.gz
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 1724 May  3  2017
/usr/share/man/man1/anyconfig_cli-3.6.1.gz
ssato@localhost%

> And for the python2 subpackage, don't copy the executable for the
> unversioned executable, just add a second symlink:
> 
> ln -s anyconfig_cli-%{python3_version} %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/anyconfig_cli

I've fixed it:
https://github.com/ssato/python-anyconfig/commit/51a7e4fa1376e9daa1b90ea0be861bbf6f4b325d#diff-49f0020084413dbd6fb3815a74500f70

-- 
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 1538658] Review Request: python-anyconfig - common API to load and dump configuration files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538658



--- Comment #5 from Satoru SATOH  ---
(In reply to Troy Curtis from comment #4)
> Also the Group: tag is not used in Fedora.

Thanks for you comment. I removed it in the upstream:
https://github.com/ssato/python-anyconfig/commit/d45903b65ebe8e2a653094f3956dd9d32079c441#diff-49f0020084413dbd6fb3815a74500f70

-- 
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 1539276] Review Request: rust-threadpool - Thread pool for running a number of jobs on a fixed set of worker threads

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539276



--- Comment #2 from Tomas Tomecek  ---
Thanks Igor! Good suggestions.

Spec URL: https://ttomecek.fedorapeople.org/rust-threadpool.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ttomecek.fedorapeople.org/rust-threadpool-1.7.1-2.fc28.src.rpmthttps://crates.io/crates/threadpool

-- 
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 1527289] Review Request: nototools - Noto fonts support tools and scripts plus web site generation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1527289

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #16 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
I am approving the SRPM submitted in comment#10

Let's first have this (python2) package in Fedora.

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 1527289] Review Request: nototools - Noto fonts support tools and scripts plus web site generation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1527289



--- Comment #15 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
I had already given my attempt to convert it to python3 compatible code but I
could not make "third_party/spiro/*" code compatible with python3. Its very old
and mathematical code. Also once this conversion completes we need to make sure
code runs in python3 environment without error.

I am sorry I took some time here to work on this but could not actually make
some progress.

Another thing, If I am not wrong then Fedora is moving to use python3 packages
and soon in next few releases it will become default. I think currently F28
Live installation also pulling python3 modules.

-- 
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 1500958] Review Request: python-kiwi-gtk - Framework for Python GUI applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1500958



--- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-kiwi-gtk

-- 
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 1436734] Review Request: ocfs2-tools - Tools for managing the Oracle Cluster Filesystem 2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1436734



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Group: is not needed

 - Patch the incorrect FSF address and notify upstream about it:

ocfs2console.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ocfs2interface/__init__.py
ocfs2console.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ocfs2interface/about.py
ocfs2console.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ocfs2interface/bosa.py
ocfs2console.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ocfs2interface/classlabel.py
ocfs2console.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ocfs2interface/confdefs.py
ocfs2console.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ocfs2interface/console.py
ocfs2console.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ocfs2interface/format.py
ocfs2console.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ocfs2interface/fsck.py
ocfs2console.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ocfs2interface/fstab.py
ocfs2console.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ocfs2interface/fswidgets.py
ocfs2console.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ocfs2interface/general.py
ocfs2console.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ocfs2interface/guiutil.py
ocfs2console.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ocfs2interface/ipwidget.py
ocfs2console.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ocfs2interface/ls.py
ocfs2console.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ocfs2interface/menu.py
ocfs2console.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ocfs2interface/mount.py
ocfs2console.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ocfs2interface/nodeconfig.py
ocfs2console.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ocfs2interface/o2cb_ctl.py
ocfs2console.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ocfs2interface/partitionview.py
ocfs2console.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ocfs2interface/process.py
ocfs2console.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ocfs2interface/pushconfig.py
ocfs2console.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ocfs2interface/terminal.py
ocfs2console.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ocfs2interface/toolbar.py
ocfs2console.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/ocfs2interface/tune.py
ocfs2-tools-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/include/ocfs2/kernel-rbtree.h
ocfs2-tools-debugsource.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/ocfs2-tools-1.8.5-2.fc28.x86_64/include/ocfs2/kernel-rbtree.h
ocfs2-tools-debugsource.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/src/debug/ocfs2-tools-1.8.5-2.fc28.x86_64/libocfs2/kernel-rbtree.c

grep -rl '59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307  USA' * | xargs
-i@ sed -i 's/59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307  USA/51
Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA./g' @
grep -rl '59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 021110-1307, USA.' * | xargs
-i@ sed -i 's/59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 021110-1307, USA./51
Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA./g' @
grep -rl '59 Temple Place - Suite 330,' * | xargs -i@ sed -i 's/59 Temple Place
- Suite 330/51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor/; s/02111-1307/02110-1301/g' @


 - udev-rule-in-etc:
A udev rule has been packaged in /etc/udev/rules.d. These rules should be
installed in the system rules dir instead.

ocfs2-tools.x86_64: W: udev-rule-in-etc /etc/udev/rules.d/51-ocfs2.rules

 i.e. install the file in %{_udevrulesdir} (aka /usr/lib/udev/rules.d)

 - You're missing %{?_isa} in your Requires for console and devel:

Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

 - Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel

You must BR python2-devel or python3-devel instead of python-devel



Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel


= 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]: 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 

[Bug 1539362] Review Request: rust-tokio-proto - Network application framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539362



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-tokio-proto

-- 
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 1539359] Review Request: rust-take - Cell allowing the inner value to be consumed without a mutable reference

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539359



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-take

-- 
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 1539357] Review Request: rust-tokio-service - Core `Service` trait for Tokio

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539357



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-tokio-service

-- 
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 1540599] Review Request: rust-remove_dir_all - Safe, reliable implementation of remove_dir_all

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540599



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-remove_dir_all

-- 
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 1539271] Review Request: rust-streaming-stats - Experimental crate for computing basic statistics on streams

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539271



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-streaming-stats

-- 
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 1538658] Review Request: python-anyconfig - common API to load and dump configuration files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538658



--- Comment #4 from Troy Curtis  ---
Also the Group: tag is not used in 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 1538658] Review Request: python-anyconfig - common API to load and dump configuration files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538658



--- Comment #3 from Troy Curtis  ---
License file change looks good.

The version suffixes are for the corresponding python version.

%{python2_version} and %{python3_version} already have the minor version, for
instance 2.7, and 3.6.  So the move would be:

mv %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/anyconfig_cli
%{buildroot}%{_bindir}/anyconfig_cli-%{python3_version}

Then symlink from the major version only variant:

ln -s anyconfig_cli-%{python3_version} %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/anyconfig_cli-3

And for the python2 subpackage, don't copy the executable for the unversioned
executable, just add a second symlink:

ln -s anyconfig_cli-%{python3_version} %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/anyconfig_cli

And then mirror this for the man pages.  

You can take a look at the python2 and python3 packages to get the idea (though
it doesn't use a '-', but for this package you should).

-- 
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 1527289] Review Request: nototools - Noto fonts support tools and scripts plus web site generation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1527289



--- Comment #14 from Peter Oliver  ---
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #13)
> I really don't see any use of packaging only for python2 version whereas we
> are moving to python3 soon totally.
> 
> Let me see if this can be made compatible with python3 version.

Well, the use would be that we could get this into Fedora sooner.  If you can
port it to Python 3 that's great, but if you don't have time to work on it now,
that's okay, Python 2 is going to be around for a couple more years yet.

-- 
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 1540833] Review Request: racket - programming language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540833

Iwicki Artur  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||fed...@svgames.pl



--- Comment #1 from Iwicki Artur  ---
>Group: Development/Languages
The "Group:" tag is not used in Fedora.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections

>%package devel
>Requires: racket
This should be an arch-specific, versioned dependency. Otherwise racket-devel
can be installed alongside any version of racket. Use "racket%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}".
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package

>%package doc
>Requires: racket
Documentation packages should not depend on the main package.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation

>%files
>%{_libdir}/lib*-*.so
>[...]
>%files devel
>%{_libdir}/*.so
Won't this cause the *.so files to be included in both the main package and the
-devel subpackage? Duplication should be avoided when possible.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplicate_Files

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

[Bug 1538658] Review Request: python-anyconfig - common API to load and dump configuration files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538658

Satoru SATOH  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ss...@redhat.com



--- Comment #2 from Satoru SATOH  ---
FYI.

I'm not sure how to fix the issues in a correct manner but made some changes in
its upstream:

> Since executables are being shipped in both python 2 and 3 subpackages, each
> package needs to have executables with -X and -X.Y version suffixes [0], with
> python2 providing an unversioned symlink executable.

https://github.com/ssato/python-anyconfig/commit/98d28d056299abf2f83feffbc14ec4c157757214#diff-49f0020084413dbd6fb3815a74500f70

> The LICENSE.MIT file needs to be included with %license.

https://github.com/ssato/python-anyconfig/commit/be544779e697674520def3907cf090a42c0f715f#diff-49f0020084413dbd6fb3815a74500f70

-- 
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 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134



--- Comment #2 from Mattias Ellert  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
> There's a few fedora-review errors but I don't know how pertinent they are
> regarding EPEL6 packaging, you're using old macros instead of
> %mvn_artifact/%mvn_install because they don't exist in EPEL6?

Correct.

The %mvn_artifact/%mvn_install macros can be used in EPEL7 (where they are part
of the maven-local package) but not in EPEL6.

In EPEL6 the old %add_maven_depmap macro (used in Fedora before
%mvn_artifact/%mvn_install were introduced) does not exist. The even older
%add_to_maven_depmap/%update_maven_depmap macros must be used instead.

The Requires: jpackage-utils is not added automatically to javadoc packages in
EPEL6.

The zero-length file rpmlint complains about is on purpose. All information is
contained in the filename, and the file's content is never read. Compare with
the file in the standard non-compat bouncycastle package (either in Fedora or
EPEL):

$ ls -l
/etc/java/security/security.d/2000-org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 0 19 aug 04.26
/etc/java/security/security.d/2000-org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider

> Issues:
> ===
> - POM files have correct Maven mapping
>   Note: Old style Maven package found, no add_maven_depmap calls found but
>   POM files present
>   See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Maven_pom.xml_files
> - Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is being used
> - Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
>   Note: jpackage-utils requires are automatically generated by the
>   buildsystem
>   See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java

> Rpmlint
> ---
> Checking: bouncycastle1.58-1.58-1.el6.noarch.rpm
>   bouncycastle1.58-pkix-1.58-1.el6.noarch.rpm
>   bouncycastle1.58-pg-1.58-1.el6.noarch.rpm
>   bouncycastle1.58-mail-1.58-1.el6.noarch.rpm
>   bouncycastle1.58-tls-1.58-1.el6.noarch.rpm
>   bouncycastle1.58-javadoc-1.58-1.el6.noarch.rpm
>   bouncycastle1.58-1.58-1.el6.src.rpm
> bouncycastle1.58.noarch: E: zero-length
> /etc/java/security/security.d/2158-org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.
> BouncyCastleProvider
> 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

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

[Bug 1540875] New: Review Request: python-pyModBusTCP - A simple Modbus/ TCP library for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540875

Bug ID: 1540875
   Summary: Review Request: python-pyModBusTCP - A simple
Modbus/TCP library for Python
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: steve.tray...@cern.ch
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/pymodbustcp/python-pyModBusTCP.spec
SRPM URL:
http://cern.ch/straylen/rpms/pymodbustcp/python-pyModbusTCP-0.1.5-1.fc27.src.rpm
Description: pyModbusTCP A simple Modbus/TCP client library for Python
Fedora Account System Username: stevetraylen

-- 
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