[Bug 1507103] Review Request: kronosnet - Multipoint-to-Multipoint network abstraction layer for High Availability applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103



--- Comment #74 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto  ---
(In reply to Jan Pokorný from comment #73)
> Ok, if the expectations are set like this, meaning that the future
> obstacles I was worried about -- mostly related to parallel pkgconfig
> files as their names form de facto inter-dependencies parallel of
> API in RPM world (hence something that should be established wisely
> since the beginning because once the client packages will start to
> pick this "pkgconfig(libknet)", Pandora's box is open and maintenance
> burden cannot be taken back) -- won't occur (all libknet clients will
> need to be rebuilt for/ported to libknet2 at once on the single system,
> and all the systems they want to communicate with unless compatibility
> is preserved), I will conclude this extension of point G. with a simple
> task to have in-spec comment above "%files -n libknet1-devel" to
> express this explicitly, e.g.:
> 
> > # libknet.pc leading to pkgconfig(libknet) automatic virtual provides,
> > # like other files, is not explicitly versioned in the name like the
> > # subpackages are -- intention of doing so for subpackage names is
> > # to ease the cross-checking the compatibility of the remote clients
> > # interchanging data using this network communication library, as
> > # the number denotes the protocol version (providing multiple
> > # protocol versions in parallel is not planned).
> > %files -n libknet1-devel

Good enough explanation.

> 
> [I hope I picked the gist of the reasoning right, but really can't see
> any other justification, to version packaged libraries like this all
> the time may be common for Debian, but this is not Debian, hopefully
> this is clear.]

Let´s not mix up things please. Debian uses the soname there.

> 
> This is in addition to summary tags per [comment 61].
> 
> * * *
> 
> Regarding A., I can tolerate the situation as is provided there's:
> 
> - clear promise to do something about that in the future
>   (I will follow-up on that github question to see if the original
>   use case cannot be handled by other means, which would be the
>   simplest solution, otherwise there are these casing options etc.
>   to be implemented if upstream-downstream sync is required)
> 
> - comment above "%debug_package" that it is not relevant for
>   Fedora and its removal is pending

ack.

> 
> * * *
> 
> Please, present the fixed spec file so I can recheck and approve
> the review.

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

[Bug 1550319] Review Request: python-flask-gravatar - This is small and simple integration gravatar into flask.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550319



--- Comment #8 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/flask_gravatar/__pycache__

Has no owner. You should do the same %dir procedure for the __pycache__
directory in the python3 package %files section.

Please, upload both the spec and the srpm file so fedora-review can parse the
review request correctly.

-- 
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 1551153] Review Request: tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin - Binaries that are needed for the NFV host Tuned profile

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551153

Jaroslav Škarvada  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ma...@redhat.com



-- 
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 1551153] New: Review Request: tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin - Binaries that are needed for the NFV host Tuned profile

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551153

Bug ID: 1551153
   Summary: Review Request: tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin - Binaries
that are needed for the NFV host Tuned profile
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jskar...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin/tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin/tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin-0-0.1.20180302git1edfa966.fc26.src.rpm
Description: Binaries that are needed for the Network Function Virtualization
(NFV) host Tuned profile.
Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad

There are few false positives by rpmlint:
tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share
/usr/share/tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin/tscdeadline_latency.flat
- it's bootable image like kernel or memtest86+, not host OS executable, so we
can ship it under /usr/share.

tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin.x86_64: E: statically-linked-binary
/usr/share/tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin/tscdeadline_latency.flat
- there is nothing like dynamic linking for bootable images.

tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin.x86_64: W: executable-stack
/usr/share/tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin/tscdeadline_latency.flat
- this is not an issue for bootable image.

tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin.x86_64: W: no-documentation
- no documentation exists.

Moreover there is conflict with the existing tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin
subpackage built in Rawhide / f28 from the tuned SRPM. The purpose of this
review request is to remove the noarch subpackage and replace it by this new
package. I am maintainer of Tuned, so I will handle it.

-- 
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 1550655] Review Request: python-tree-format - Python library to generate nicely formatted trees, like the UNIX tree command

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550655



--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-tree-format. You may commit to the
branch "f27" 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 1550740] Review request: webextension-token-signing - Firefox extension for signing with your eID on the web

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550740

Germano Massullo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #8 from Germano Massullo  ---
Hi Robert-André, it looks like we have some problems on non x86_64
architectures
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25424160

-- 
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 1550334] Review Request: python-pyrsistent Persistent/Functional/ Immutable data structures

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550334



--- Comment #6 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5)
> There's a Makefile to build the sphinx doc
> https://github.com/tobgu/pyrsistent/blob/master/docs/Makefile

I am interested in less work possible, also I am using the source code that
comes from pypi, you can download it and unpack and there's no docs/Makefile on
it :-)


https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pyrsistent

README file are being shipped as doc, I think is enough,

-- 
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 1550685] Review Request: python-cookiecutter - CLI utility to create projects from templates

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550685



--- Comment #4 from Brett Lentz  ---
Thanks for the pointer. :)

It looks like poyo and jinja2-time are not packaged. Everything else listed in
setup.py appears to already be packaged.

So, same question - will that block this review if this package does not
include docs and tests?

-- 
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 1550396] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-netspeed - A gnome-shell extension to show speed of the internet

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550396

MartinKG  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2018-03-02 14:23:54



--- Comment #6 from MartinKG  ---
package has been built successfully on f26, f27 and rawhide.

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

[Bug 1550740] Review request: webextension-token-signing - Firefox extension for signing with your eID on the web

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550740



--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/webextension-token-signing

-- 
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 1550655] Review Request: python-tree-format - Python library to generate nicely formatted trees, like the UNIX tree command

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550655

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.



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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
 (v2.0)". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
 in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-tree-format/review-python-tree-
 format/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.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[-]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2
 -tree-format , python3-tree-format
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should 

[Bug 1550740] Review request: webextension-token-signing - Firefox extension for signing with your eID on the web

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550740

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #6 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 1551107] New: Review Request: nulib2 - Disk and file archive program for NuFX (.SDK, .BXY) archives

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551107

Bug ID: 1551107
   Summary: Review Request: nulib2 - Disk and file archive program
for NuFX (.SDK, .BXY) archives
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: space...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/nulib2/nulib2.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/nulib2/nulib2-3.1.0-1.fc27.src.rpm
Description: NuLib2 is a command-line file archiver for Apple II archives. It
can operate
on ShrinkIt and Binary II files (.shk, .sdk, .bxy, .bse, .bny, .bqy).

Fedora Account System Username: brouhaha

-- 
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 910699] Review Request: pagekite - makes localhost servers visible to the world

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910699

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|RAWHIDE |---
   Keywords||Reopened



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
pagekite-0.5.9.2-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-a7578c5325

-- 
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 1550740] Review request: webextension-token-signing - Firefox extension for signing with your eID on the web

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550740



--- Comment #5 from Germano Massullo  ---
IMHO if there is not anything else to correct, we could proceed

-- 
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 1550743] Review request: open-eid - Meta-package for Estonian Electronic Identity Software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550743



--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/open-eid

-- 
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 1550743] Review request: open-eid - Meta-package for Estonian Electronic Identity Software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550743

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #7 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 1550743] Review request: open-eid - Meta-package for Estonian Electronic Identity Software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550743



--- Comment #6 from Germano Massullo  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5)
> From what do you derive the version?

Previous maintainer used to get version from ubuntu meta package
https://github.com/open-eid/linux-installer
but since we don't package the content of
https://github.com/open-eid/linux-installer/releases
because it is useless to us, I am undecided if continuing using such versioning
or not.

Depending on this decision we should also think about adding or not
https://github.com/open-eid/linux-installer
to URL 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 1550685] Review Request: python-cookiecutter - CLI utility to create projects from templates

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550685



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
python-click is packaged, you've got the list of Requires in the setup.py:

requirements = [
'future>=0.15.2',
'binaryornot>=0.2.0',
'jinja2>=2.7',
'click>=5.0',
'whichcraft>=0.4.0',
'poyo>=0.1.0',
'jinja2-time>=0.1.0',
'requests>=2.18.0',
]

Also there are test to be run with:

pytest<3.3.0
pytest-cov
pytest-mock==1.1
pytest-catchlog
freezegun

-- 
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 1550743] Review request: open-eid - Meta-package for Estonian Electronic Identity Software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550743



--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
From what do you derive the version?

-- 
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 1536878] Review Request: elementary-wallpapers - Collection of wallpapers from the elementary project

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1536878



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
elementary-wallpapers-5.0-1.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-2018-8d9b8c0de1

-- 
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 1507103] Review Request: kronosnet - Multipoint-to-Multipoint network abstraction layer for High Availability applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103



--- Comment #73 from Jan Pokorný  ---
Ok, if the expectations are set like this, meaning that the future
obstacles I was worried about -- mostly related to parallel pkgconfig
files as their names form de facto inter-dependencies parallel of
API in RPM world (hence something that should be established wisely
since the beginning because once the client packages will start to
pick this "pkgconfig(libknet)", Pandora's box is open and maintenance
burden cannot be taken back) -- won't occur (all libknet clients will
need to be rebuilt for/ported to libknet2 at once on the single system,
and all the systems they want to communicate with unless compatibility
is preserved), I will conclude this extension of point G. with a simple
task to have in-spec comment above "%files -n libknet1-devel" to
express this explicitly, e.g.:

> # libknet.pc leading to pkgconfig(libknet) automatic virtual provides,
> # like other files, is not explicitly versioned in the name like the
> # subpackages are -- intention of doing so for subpackage names is
> # to ease the cross-checking the compatibility of the remote clients
> # interchanging data using this network communication library, as
> # the number denotes the protocol version (providing multiple
> # protocol versions in parallel is not planned).
> %files -n libknet1-devel

[I hope I picked the gist of the reasoning right, but really can't see
any other justification, to version packaged libraries like this all
the time may be common for Debian, but this is not Debian, hopefully
this is clear.]

This is in addition to summary tags per [comment 61].

* * *

Regarding A., I can tolerate the situation as is provided there's:

- clear promise to do something about that in the future
  (I will follow-up on that github question to see if the original
  use case cannot be handled by other means, which would be the
  simplest solution, otherwise there are these casing options etc.
  to be implemented if upstream-downstream sync is required)

- comment above "%debug_package" that it is not relevant for
  Fedora and its removal is pending

* * *

Please, present the fixed spec file so I can recheck and approve
the review.

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

[Bug 1536878] Review Request: elementary-wallpapers - Collection of wallpapers from the elementary project

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1536878

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
elementary-wallpapers-5.0-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2018-5f23d17015

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #18 from Devrim Gündüz  ---
(In reply to Itamar Reis Peixoto from comment #16)
> python-wsgiref has been retired from fedora, is there alternatives for him ?
> 
> last release from 2006
> 
> https://pypi.python.org/pypi/wsgiref

We don't need wsgiref

Please see comment 10:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380826#c10

(and also "Gerekiyor" string, it is a copy-paste error in that comment)

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #17 from Devrim Gündüz  ---
Hi,

(In reply to Itamar Reis Peixoto from comment #15)
> Devrim, I have a question, 
> 
> why pgadmin4 are using psycopg instead of python-PyMySQL ?
> 
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=20789

maybe because it is a PostgreSQL GUI? :)

Regards, Devrim

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #16 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
python-wsgiref has been retired from fedora, is there alternatives for him ?

last release from 2006

https://pypi.python.org/pypi/wsgiref

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #15 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
Devrim, I have a question, 

why pgadmin4 are using psycopg instead of python-PyMySQL ?

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=20789

-- 
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 1550743] Review request: open-eid - Meta-package for Estonian Electronic Identity Software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550743



--- Comment #4 from Germano Massullo  ---
https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/open-eid/open-eid.spec

https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/open-eid/open-eid-17.12-1.fc27.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1550743] Review request: open-eid - Meta-package for Estonian Electronic Identity Software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550743



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Obsoletes:  estonianidcard
Provides:   estonianidcard

You didn't include the version you replace, nor the one you provide instead.

-- 
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 1507103] Review Request: kronosnet - Multipoint-to-Multipoint network abstraction layer for High Availability applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103



--- Comment #72 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto  ---
(In reply to Jan Pokorný from comment #71)
> Ok, the same argument can be applied to implicit versioning of
> subpackages (BuildRequires: libknet-devel%{?_isa} < 2.0), why
> do you want to treat these two things (subpackages and respective
> pkgconfig files) differently, especially (to repeat it) if it's
> customary for the latter even when some packages (dbus) do
> explicit versioning for the former in addition (dbus-1.pc while
> avoiding dbus1-devel as the name of a subpackage)?
> 
> Am I the only to see a conflict here?

I honestly don´t see the problem. One is upstream way to express versioning and
one is packaging. Each distro has its own similar but different ways to handle
it.

> 
> Will hypothetical libknet2 ship its standalone libknet2.pc?

No, it will ship libknet.pc, I don´t want or expect that v1 or v2 can be
co-installed or co-exist in the same system.

> Why not to apply unified approach and rename libknet.pc to
> libknet1.pc.  Or conversely, to stop the explicit versioning
> in the subpackage names in there's ever to be just a single
> pkgconfig file...

I already explain why the libknet1 should have the number there to express
protocol version being installed/used in that build.

-- 
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 1550685] Review Request: python-cookiecutter - CLI utility to create projects from templates

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550685



--- Comment #2 from Brett Lentz  ---
I've added the python-provides. Spec & SRPM URLs from comment #1 are updated.

However, building the docs requires additional sphinx contrib modules that
aren't currently in fedora. Let me know if that blocks this review until those
modules are packaged.

Here's the error output:

+ make docs
+ docs
Creating file docs/cookiecutter.rst.
Creating file docs/modules.rst.
make[1]: Entering directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/cookiecutter-1.6.0/docs'
rm -rf _build/*
make[1]: Leaving directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/cookiecutter-1.6.0/docs'
make[1]: Entering directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/cookiecutter-1.6.0/docs'
sphinx-build -b html -d _build/doctrees   . _build/html
Running Sphinx v1.6.6
making output directory...

Extension error:
Could not import extension docs.ccext (exception: No module named click)
make[1]: *** [Makefile:53: html] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/cookiecutter-1.6.0/docs'
make: *** [Makefile:67: docs] Error 2
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.aTHDN6 (%build)

-- 
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 1550655] Review Request: python-tree-format - Python library to generate nicely formatted trees, like the UNIX tree command

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550655



--- Comment #2 from Brett Lentz  ---
Spec & SRPM updated. Same URL as in Comment #1

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

[Bug 1550740] Review request: webextension-token-signing - Firefox extension for signing with your eID on the web

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550740



--- Comment #4 from Germano Massullo  ---
Okay thank you

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

[Bug 1550740] Review request: webextension-token-signing - Firefox extension for signing with your eID on the web

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550740



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
(In reply to Germano Massullo from comment #2)
> https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/webextension-token-signing/
> webextension-token-signing.spec
> 
> https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/webextension-token-signing/
> webextension-token-signing-1.0.6-1.fc27.src.rpm
> 
> 
> Done everything
> 
> (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
> > [...]
> > %build
> > make %{?_smp_mflags}
> 
> in the spec file I have
> 
> %build
> export PATH=$PATH:%{_qt5_bindir}
> make %{?_smp_mflags}
> 
> should I remove also line
> export PATH=$PATH:%{_qt5_bindir}
> ?

Not needed since we're linking to the bin directly.

-- 
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 1550330] Review Request: python-flask-paranoid - Flask Simple user session protection

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550330



--- Comment #4 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
I verified and there's no tests when the pypi source are used, 

https://pypi.python.org/pypi/Flask-Paranoid

-- 
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 1550330] Review Request: python-flask-paranoid - Flask Simple user session protection

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550330



--- Comment #3 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2)

there are no docs and the tests are failing, I will report the bug about the
tests to upstream.

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

[Bug 1550743] Review request: open-eid - Meta-package for Estonian Electronic Identity Software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550743



--- Comment #2 from Germano Massullo  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
>  - Obsoletes: estonianidcard
> 
> You should add the Provides too. See

Done

https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/open-eid/open-eid.spec

https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/open-eid/open-eid-3.12.0-1.fc27.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1550740] Review request: webextension-token-signing - Firefox extension for signing with your eID on the web

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550740



--- Comment #2 from Germano Massullo  ---
https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/webextension-token-signing/webextension-token-signing.spec

https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/webextension-token-signing/webextension-token-signing-1.0.6-1.fc27.src.rpm


Done everything

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
> [...]
> %build
> make %{?_smp_mflags}

in the spec file I have

%build
export PATH=$PATH:%{_qt5_bindir}
make %{?_smp_mflags}

should I remove also line
export PATH=$PATH:%{_qt5_bindir}
?

-- 
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 1550334] Review Request: python-pyrsistent Persistent/Functional/ Immutable data structures

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550334



--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
There's a Makefile to build the sphinx doc
https://github.com/tobgu/pyrsistent/blob/master/docs/Makefile

-- 
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 1550334] Review Request: python-pyrsistent Persistent/Functional/ Immutable data structures

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550334



--- Comment #4 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
theres no sphinx docs, the docs are on README / README.RST

-- 
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 1550330] Review Request: python-flask-paranoid - Flask Simple user session protection

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550330

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - The URL returns 404 https://github.com/mattupstate/flask-paranoid

 - Run the tests provided by upstream and build the docs with Sphinx

 - Not good:

Requires:   python2-flask
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python-%{pkg_name}}

 - Not needed either in both subpackages

Provides:   python-%{pkg_name}

 - Not needed:

Group:

 - No BuildRequires:  python3-flask ??

-- 
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 1550334] Review Request: python-pyrsistent Persistent/Functional/ Immutable data structures

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550334

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - You need to run the tests from upstream and build the sphinx docs.

 - Also:

Requires: python2-six

   Shouldn't that be a BR like the Python3 package.

 - Not needed:

Group:

-- 
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 1550396] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-netspeed - A gnome-shell extension to show speed of the internet

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550396



--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-shell-extension-netspeed

-- 
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 1550743] Review request: open-eid - Meta-package for Estonian Electronic Identity Software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550743

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Obsoletes:estonianidcard

You should add the Provides too. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages

-- 
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 1507103] Review Request: kronosnet - Multipoint-to-Multipoint network abstraction layer for High Availability applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103



--- Comment #71 from Jan Pokorný  ---
Ok, the same argument can be applied to implicit versioning of
subpackages (BuildRequires: libknet-devel%{?_isa} < 2.0), why
do you want to treat these two things (subpackages and respective
pkgconfig files) differently, especially (to repeat it) if it's
customary for the latter even when some packages (dbus) do
explicit versioning for the former in addition (dbus-1.pc while
avoiding dbus1-devel as the name of a subpackage)?

Am I the only to see a conflict here?

Will hypothetical libknet2 ship its standalone libknet2.pc?
Why not to apply unified approach and rename libknet.pc to
libknet1.pc.  Or conversely, to stop the explicit versioning
in the subpackage names in there's ever to be just a single
pkgconfig file...

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

[Bug 1550396] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-netspeed - A gnome-shell extension to show speed of the internet

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550396



--- Comment #4 from MartinKG  ---
Thanks for the review.

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

[Bug 1550740] Review request: webextension-token-signing - Firefox extension for signing with your eID on the web

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550740

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Don't do that:

# following line solves errors on debugsources
%global debug_package %{nil}


  Instead make sure qmake use Fedora build flags:

%prep
%setup -q -n %{upstream_name}-%{version}

sed -i "s|qmake|/usr/lib64/qt5/bin/qmake \
  QMAKE_CFLAGS_DEBUG=\"${CFLAGS:--O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security
-Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions
-fstack-protector-strong -grecord-gcc-switches
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -mcet -fcf-protection }\"
\
  QMAKE_CFLAGS_RELEASE=\"${CFLAGS:--O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security
-Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions
-fstack-protector-strong -grecord-gcc-switches
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -mcet -fcf-protection }\"
\
  QMAKE_CXXFLAGS_DEBUG=\"${CXXFLAGS:--O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security
-Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -fexceptions
-fstack-protector-strong -grecord-gcc-switches
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -mcet -fcf-protection }\"
\
  QMAKE_CXXFLAGS_RELEASE=\"${CXXFLAGS:--O2 -g -pipe -Wall
-Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
-fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong -grecord-gcc-switches
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -mtune=generic
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -mcet -fcf-protection }\"
\
  QMAKE_LFLAGS_DEBUG=\"${LDFLAGS:--Wl,-z,relro 
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld}\" \
  QMAKE_LFLAGS_RELEASE=\"${LDFLAGS:--Wl,-z,relro 
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld}\" \
  QMAKE_STRIP=|" host-linux/GNUmakefile

%build
make %{?_smp_mflags}

 - mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 19, tab: line 10)

Either use tabs or spacs, but not both.

 - Use either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, not both.




Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros


= 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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright*
 LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 47 files have unknown license. Detailed output
 of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/webextension-token-
 signing/review-webextension-token-signing/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/mozilla/extensions/{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384
 }(firefox-nightly, firefox)
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 

[Bug 1550396] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-netspeed - A gnome-shell extension to show speed of the internet

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550396

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 1507103] Review Request: kronosnet - Multipoint-to-Multipoint network abstraction layer for High Availability applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103



--- Comment #70 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto  ---
(In reply to Jan Pokorný from comment #69)
> But the client programs will likely use the pkgconfig dependency in the
> build setup, and that has to be differentiated eventually in case it
> cares about the protocol version.

The protocol is completely transparent to the final application. The API
doesn´t allow mingling of the onwire protocol at any level.

All the application cares is the API (and features) related to a given release.

the pkg-config file correctly exports a Version: already. If an application
needs newer versions they can rely on that at configure time.

-- 
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 1550396] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-netspeed - A gnome-shell extension to show speed of the internet

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550396



--- Comment #2 from MartinKG  ---
Spec URL:
https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/gnome-shell-extension-netspeed.spec
SRPM URL:
https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/gnome-shell-extension-netspeed-3.28-0.3.20180208gite3cea60.fc27.src.rpm

%changelog
* Fri Mar 02 2018 Martin Gansser  -
3.28-0.3.20180208gite3cea60
- Remove scriptlet glib-compile-schemas: This scriptlet SHOULD NOT be used in
Fedora 24 or later.
- Remove Group: is not used in Fedora
- Add -q to %%setup to make it quiet

-- 
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 1377631] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-netspeed - A gnome-shell extension to show speed of the internet

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377631

MartinKG  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Last Closed||2018-03-02 08:12:52



-- 
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 1507103] Review Request: kronosnet - Multipoint-to-Multipoint network abstraction layer for High Availability applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103



--- Comment #69 from Jan Pokorný  ---
But the client programs will likely use the pkgconfig dependency in the
build setup, and that has to be differentiated eventually in case it
cares about the protocol version.

> PKG_CHECK_MODULES(DBUS, libknet1, ...)

would make the specification targeted per the least surprise principle.
Otherwise versioning subpackages directly in the name is just half-baked
anticipation of future progress.

And then, RPM is automatically picking any pkgconfig files, turning
them into virtual "pkgconfig(X)" provides, i.e., fixed point in the
package dependencies graph (it was used to avoid file-based dependencies
hinted in [comment 28]), which is a concern from packaging perspective.

-- 
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 1550685] Review Request: python-cookiecutter - CLI utility to create projects from templates

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550685

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Same you didn't include the Python provide

%package -n python2-%{pkgname}
Summary: %{summary}
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python2-%{pkgname}}
%description -n python2-%{pkgname}
A command-line utility that creates projects from cookiecutters (project
templates), e.g. creating a Python package project from a Python package
project template.

%if %{with python3}
%package -n python3-%{pkgname}
Summary: %{summary}
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{pkgname}}
%description -n python3-%{pkgname}
A command-line utility that creates projects from cookiecutters (project
templates), e.g. creating a Python package project from a Python package
project template.
%endif # with python3

 - Also you must build the docs with Sphinx. Add a BR for python2-sphinx and
run:

make docs

  Then include the resulting html directory with %doc instead of %doc docs.

-- 
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 1550655] Review Request: python-tree-format - Python library to generate nicely formatted trees, like the UNIX tree command

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550655

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
You're missing the python provides, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#The_.25python_provide_macro


%package -n python2-%{pkgname}
Summary:%{summary}
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python2-%{pkgname}}
%description -n python2-%{pkgname}
Python library to generate nicely formatted trees, like the UNIX `tree` command

%if %{with python3}
%package -n python3-%{pkgname}
Summary:%{summary}
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{pkgname}}
%description -n python3-%{pkgname}
Python library to generate nicely formatted trees, like the UNIX `tree` command
%endif # with python3

-- 
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 1550396] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-netspeed - A gnome-shell extension to show speed of the internet

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550396

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - glib-compile-schemas: This scriptlet SHOULD NOT be used in Fedora 24 or
later.

Remove the scriplets, it is not needed anymore.

 - Group: is not used in Fedora

 - Add -q to %setup to make it quiet



Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- glib-compile-schemas must not be run in %postun and %posttrans for Fedora
  24 and later.
  Note: gschema file(s) in gnome-shell-extension-netspeed
  See:
 
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:Scriptlets=494555#GSettings_Schema


= 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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 18 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/gnome-shell-extension-netspeed/review-
 gnome-shell-extension-netspeed/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/glib-2.0/schemas,
 /usr/share/glib-2.0
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: 

[Bug 1507103] Review Request: kronosnet - Multipoint-to-Multipoint network abstraction layer for High Availability applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103



--- Comment #68 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto  ---
> 
> Btw. I am still thinking how the future protocol bumps will work out,
> shouldn't the pkgconfig file contain the versioning in its name
> as well (see dbus, glib, etc.)?  If so, it would be preferred to make
> that change prior to inclusion (so that no bogus pkgconfig virtual
> provides get spread).

whoever is going to use libknet will have BR libknet1-devel or libknetX-devel
and Requires the equivalent. the BR is explicit.

-- 
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 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #73 from Kevin Kofler  ---
> It was re-added in comment #54, but I see no actual legal questions there: 
> only > technical objections.

Comment #52 is a legal question. It is definitely not technical.

-- 
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 1418429] Review Request: python-cachez - memoization cache decorator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1418429

Eric Harney  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(ehar...@redhat.co |
   |m)  |



-- 
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 1507103] Review Request: kronosnet - Multipoint-to-Multipoint network abstraction layer for High Availability applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103



--- Comment #67 from Jan Pokorný  ---
> Not sure, we received the patch from the Suse maintainers, asking
> explicitly to enable it. Given that it didn´t affect Fedora I didn´t
> feel the need to investigate further.
> 
> Probably the OBS is not the same as internal OpenSUSE build system?

https://github.com/kronosnet/kronosnet/pull/98#issuecomment-369880485


Btw. I am still thinking how the future protocol bumps will work out,
shouldn't the pkgconfig file contain the versioning in its name
as well (see dbus, glib, etc.)?  If so, it would be preferred to make
that change prior to inclusion (so that no bogus pkgconfig virtual
provides get spread).

-- 
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 1507103] Review Request: kronosnet - Multipoint-to-Multipoint network abstraction layer for High Availability applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103



--- Comment #66 from Fabio Massimo Di Nitto  ---
(In reply to Jan Pokorný from comment #65)
> [re A.]
> 
> > The debuginfo generation is default: on in fedora. Those statements
> > have no effect on fedora unless explicitly overridden. Those are
> > coming from upstream spec file that requires tuning to build debuginfo
> > on Opensuse.
> 
> Can you enlighten me, then, how OpenSUSE and their OBS perhaps relate
> to the need to specify "debug_package" macro explicitly?  I was unable
> to find such instructions, and the spec-s I looked at did not need it,
> either, e.g.:
> https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/devel:gcc/gcc8/gcc8.
> spec?expand=1

Not sure, we received the patch from the Suse maintainers, asking explicitly to
enable it. Given that it didn´t affect Fedora I didn´t feel the need to
investigate further.

Probably the OBS is not the same as internal OpenSUSE build system?

> 
> > They create no harm and have no effect on Fedora.  The end result is
> > the same.
> 
> I am not disputing direct effects, just the spec file clarity
> important for comprehension by arbitrary Fedora maintainers, per the
> linked statement in the guidelines:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Spec_Legibility
> 
> Anything not a concern of Fedora doesn't belong to a dedicated specfile.

see below.

> 
> > Something you missed in the process is that as the review goes, we are
> > merging all those bits back into upstream spec file so that it can
> > build properly both for suse and fedora / rhel / centos and reduce the
> > need to maintain multiple spec files around (after all as you somehow
> > agreed below in another context we want to kill redundancy).
> > 
> > Given that those are more useful on opensuse we can add a:
> > %if 0%{?suse_version}
> > somewhere later on to make them even more transparent for fedora.
> 
> This is expressly forbidden, see the link.

the statement can be somehow interpreted:

"To help facilitate legibility, only macros and conditionals for Fedora and
EPEL are allowed to be used in Fedora Packages. Use of macros and conditionals
for other distributions, including Fedora derivatives, is not permitted in spec
files of packages in the main Fedora repositories unless those macros and
conditionals are also present in Fedora."

Then we can just change them to %if 0%{?fedora*..} but before answering, please
read more below first.

> 
> Therein lies a clear conflict of interest:
> 
> - upstream: one-size-fits-all should it be interested in high-level
> packaging at all
> 
> - downstream: well-tailored solution, following special needs and
>   conventions of the distribution for its greater good
> 
> Solution may be a mix of:
> 
> - use conditionalized spec in upstream, drop irrelevant conditionals
>   when reflecting the upstream changes in downstream
> 
> - maintain downstream-quality spec files in upstream as discrete files
>   per distro
> 
> - synthesis of the previous two can be to use a macro language like
>   M4 to conditionalize without spoiling the results (for clufter,
>   I abused the fact that spec language is in itself based on expanding
>   macros, which can be selectively blinded with external preprocessing:
>   https://pagure.io/distill-spec, hence can have upstream spec file
>   almost arbitrarily complex, but that's just a source for further
>   chewing: https://pagure.io/clufter/blob/master/f/misc/clufter.spec)
> 
> - apply nifty tricks, which we did for instance in pacemaker to
>   support %license tag also in EL6:
>  
> https://github.com/ClusterLabs/pacemaker/commit/
> a592019fbe88144bc42131b0e20deea96acd6d45

The technicality on how to get there is an upstream problem, but ideally we
will get the make $distro-specfile upstream to generate a valid (and policy
compliant) spec file.

One step at a time tho, once this is done, we can start merging things upstream
for downstream benefit.

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

[Bug 910699] Review Request: pagekite - makes localhost servers visible to the world

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910699



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
pagekite-0.5.9.2-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-a7578c5325

-- 
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 1507103] Review Request: kronosnet - Multipoint-to-Multipoint network abstraction layer for High Availability applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103



--- Comment #65 from Jan Pokorný  ---
[re A.]

> The debuginfo generation is default: on in fedora. Those statements
> have no effect on fedora unless explicitly overridden. Those are
> coming from upstream spec file that requires tuning to build debuginfo
> on Opensuse.

Can you enlighten me, then, how OpenSUSE and their OBS perhaps relate
to the need to specify "debug_package" macro explicitly?  I was unable
to find such instructions, and the spec-s I looked at did not need it,
either, e.g.:
https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/devel:gcc/gcc8/gcc8.spec?expand=1

> They create no harm and have no effect on Fedora.  The end result is
> the same.

I am not disputing direct effects, just the spec file clarity
important for comprehension by arbitrary Fedora maintainers, per the
linked statement in the guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Spec_Legibility

Anything not a concern of Fedora doesn't belong to a dedicated specfile.

> Something you missed in the process is that as the review goes, we are
> merging all those bits back into upstream spec file so that it can
> build properly both for suse and fedora / rhel / centos and reduce the
> need to maintain multiple spec files around (after all as you somehow
> agreed below in another context we want to kill redundancy).
> 
> Given that those are more useful on opensuse we can add a:
> %if 0%{?suse_version}
> somewhere later on to make them even more transparent for fedora.

This is expressly forbidden, see the link.

Therein lies a clear conflict of interest:

- upstream: one-size-fits-all should it be interested in high-level
packaging at all

- downstream: well-tailored solution, following special needs and
  conventions of the distribution for its greater good

Solution may be a mix of:

- use conditionalized spec in upstream, drop irrelevant conditionals
  when reflecting the upstream changes in downstream

- maintain downstream-quality spec files in upstream as discrete files
  per distro

- synthesis of the previous two can be to use a macro language like
  M4 to conditionalize without spoiling the results (for clufter,
  I abused the fact that spec language is in itself based on expanding
  macros, which can be selectively blinded with external preprocessing:
  https://pagure.io/distill-spec, hence can have upstream spec file
  almost arbitrarily complex, but that's just a source for further
  chewing: https://pagure.io/clufter/blob/master/f/misc/clufter.spec)

- apply nifty tricks, which we did for instance in pacemaker to
  support %license tag also in EL6:
 
https://github.com/ClusterLabs/pacemaker/commit/a592019fbe88144bc42131b0e20deea96acd6d45

-- 
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 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #72 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  ---
Just for been clear. The original problem with fdk-aac was never about patent
(at least on the 3rd party level). It's all about copyright.

You are not changing anything to the copyright if the patent is expunged from
the library. So, the library still has to be considered as non-floss 
The uncertainty about the license condition would still apply.

Now about RPM Fusion. We have a non-replacement policy for fedora packages in
our default enabled repositories. So if you still decide to introduce this
broken package (both legally and technically), then we will move our fdk-aac to
a side repository that will need to be explicitly enabled.

As I haven't see anyone to volunteer to maintain the fdk-aac-nonfree
complementary package. It means that you will provide that package by default
to users. And I'm afraid that without the complementary package, many users
will have a broken experience of he-aac with fedora.

The point is. If the goal was to restore the support relying on the external
repository policy. Why just not only to rely on it in the first step and drop
the fedora fdk-aac 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