[Bug 1594430] Review Request: python-ROPGadget - A tool to find ROP gadgets in program files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594430 --- Comment #4 from W. Michael Petullo --- Spec URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/python-ROPGadget.spec SRPM URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/python-ROPGadget-5.4-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: ROPGadget lets you search your gadgets on your binaries to facilitate your ROP exploitation. ROPgadget supports ELF, PE and Mach-O format on x86, x64, ARM, ARM64, PowerPC, SPARC and MIPS architectures. Fedora Account System Username: mikep I think my changes address comments #1, #2, and #3. Rpmlint still notes the lack of a manpage, but the distribution does not include one. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/NTUFTI655C5WIOVCKLSCNHPZIY37DIDA/
[Bug 1519785] Review Request: notepadqq - An advanced text editor for developers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519785 --- Comment #22 from Ben Rosser --- No worries, it happens sometime-- just wanted to make sure you were aware. :) Anyway, I'm sorry, but it looks like there are (now?) more bundled dependencies under src/editor/libs that I seem to have missed before... $ ls -l src/editor/libs ... drwxrwxr-x. 12 bjr bjr 4096 May 10 18:26 codemirror drwxrwxr-x. 2 bjr bjr 4096 May 10 18:26 jquery drwxrwxr-x. 6 bjr bjr 4096 May 10 18:26 MathJax drwxrwxr-x. 2 bjr bjr 4096 May 10 18:26 require.js MathJax is the big one, but there's also require.js and jquery. I would suggest trying to unbundle MathJax if possible; the other two it may be simplest to just add bundled provides for. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/PQNPW23EKLPUQW5YZLOM3W4CYFBBZZ5U/
[Bug 1595948] New: Review Request: mingw-vulkan-validation-layers - MinGW Windows vulkan-validation-layers library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595948 Bug ID: 1595948 Summary: Review Request: mingw-vulkan-validation-layers - MinGW Windows vulkan-validation-layers library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-vulkan-validation-layers.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-vulkan-validation-layers-1.1.77-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows vulkan-validation-layers library Fedora Account System Username: smani -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/Y2CNEKJ3QBGURW2ELPLPUW54FP7435C5/
[Bug 1595947] New: Review Request: mingw-vulkan-loader - MinGW Windows vulkan-loader library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595947 Bug ID: 1595947 Summary: Review Request: mingw-vulkan-loader - MinGW Windows vulkan-loader library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-vulkan-loader.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-vulkan-loader-1.1.77-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows vulkan-loader library Fedora Account System Username: smani -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/FXBZYJOWDSPGTBPDR2LZJV7PN3U7BH2G/
[Bug 1595945] New: Review Request: mingw-vulkan-headers - MinGW Windows vulkan-headers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595945 Bug ID: 1595945 Summary: Review Request: mingw-vulkan-headers - MinGW Windows vulkan-headers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-vulkan-headers.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-vulkan-headers-1.1.77-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows vulkan-headers Fedora Account System Username: smani -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/QFZ7UT6WU6FRHR7XMTE4STRZ5NSMRTRW/
[Bug 1590921] Review Request: restic - restic is a backup program that is fast, efficient and secure.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1590921 --- Comment #11 from Steve --- Dependency golang-github-pkg-sftp requires a bump with upstream to support restic. Submitted a PR to update it. The restic package needs an update to use WithMaxRetries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1590921#c9 PR: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-pkg-sftp/pull-request/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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/RWZLNJBXLRVKS4FC4LQHTPBVNK5QIW3I/
[Bug 1595943] New: Review Request: mingw-spirv-tools - MinGW Windows spirv-tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595943 Bug ID: 1595943 Summary: Review Request: mingw-spirv-tools - MinGW Windows spirv-tools Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-spirv-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-spirv-tools-2018.3.0-0.1.git26a698c.fc29.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows spirv-tools Fedora Account System Username: smani -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/B5INYDCQCCHKXF23JKFENQQI4E6B3KQF/
[Bug 1595941] New: Review Request: mingw-spirv-headers - MinGW Windows spirv-headers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595941 Bug ID: 1595941 Summary: Review Request: mingw-spirv-headers - MinGW Windows spirv-headers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-spirv-headers.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-spirv-headers-1.2-0.1.git12f8de9.fc29.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows spirv-headers Fedora Account System Username: smani -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/4HNSUHEOVXERNBGC4PJ7SQTFHX3LI7Z2/
[Bug 1595940] New: Review Request: mingw-glslang - MinGW Windows glslang library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595940 Bug ID: 1595940 Summary: Review Request: mingw-glslang - MinGW Windows glslang library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-glslang.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-glslang-3.1-0.1.git3bb4c48.fc29.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows glslang library Fedora Account System Username: smani -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/LUJ2ACLI2EBJDFKRAKD4N3I4SOI44EWQ/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #13 from jiri vanek --- https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/java-openjdk/c/1ae669ee38b50409dd95eb5be6c57066a0986fbd?branch=java-11-openjdk Spec URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-11-openjdk/java-11-openjdk.spec SRPM URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/java-11-openjdk/java-11-openjdk-11.0.ea.19-1.fc28.src.rpm updated Hopefully scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=27901945 -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/KJZXXKZ6F4UF4TCQU2VXM53TWKWVNX3X/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313
--- Comment #12 from jiri vanek ---
(In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #6)
> (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #3)
> > > Source0: jdk-jdk-jdk-%{majorver}+%{buildver}.tar.xz
> > > Source1: jdk-shenandoah-jdk-ac148db384ee.tar.xz
> > > Source8: systemtap-tapset-3.6.0pre02.tar.xz
> > >
> > > Each of these sources should have a comment preceding them how *exactly*
> > > the
> > > tarball was generated. I've been asked before by other fedora contributors
> > > how our sources are generated. When being asked I mostly don't remember
> > > myself and need to go digging. If every source was preceded by a comment
> > > where it came from those issues go away. Example:
> > >
> > > # Generated by:
> > > # $ VERSION="jdk-11+19" PROJECT_NAME=jdk REPO_NAME=jdk bash
> >
> > This kind of comment should not be necessary.
>
> It's absolutely necessary.
>
> > Those valueas are exactly for
> > this purpose hardcoded in update_package.sh
>
> Yet, nothing mentions "update_package.sh" in Source{0,1,8} comments. So for
> somebody new to the package, why would they look at update_package.sh? They
> wouldn't. There is "generate_source_tarball.sh", "generate_tarballs.sh" and
> "update_package.sh" as auxiliary scripts. Knowing nothing about a specific
> work-flow one is lost which one to use for which tarball source. Then by the
> time they've looked at the third script they are giving up trying to figure
> out the exact parameters one is supposed to invoke scripts with and ask for
> help. This absolutely needs to become easier to self-discover. Hiding
> something in extra scripts isn't enough. Remember, the audience is somebody
> who knows about RPM packaging. The expectation should be to go to the spec
> file and figure out the rest on their own. That's hard enough for OpenJDK
> spec files already. We don't need to make it even harder by introducing 3
> levels of indirection ;-)
>
> If update_packages.sh satisfies *your* work-flow, then it should be possible
> to massage that script to output the parameters used to generate a
> sourcetarball. After that it's a matter of adding that comment.
Fixed. All three scripts needs a bit of tweeking. Will tune them during next
update pf sources
--
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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/RJBQR726ZDZSVRVFBIJIY62EJHGDEFJY/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #11 from jiri vanek --- (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #2) > Patch6: systemLcmsAndJpgFixFor-f0aeede1b855.patch > > We should start sticking to a better naming scheme for patches. This one is > an upstream bug and, thus, we need to create an upstream bug if there > doesn't exist one yet. In this case it's: > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8205616 > > Suggested naming conventions for upstream bugs: > > JDK--some-name-with-hyphens.patch > > Similarly for downstream-only patches, we need to have a RHBZ bug for each > patch. Suggested naming convention: > > RHBZ--some-name-with-hyphens.patch > > Sticking to some agreed upon naming convention makes archaeology for patches > easier. What's more, it gets easier to track the upstream status for them > (if any). fixed -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/MYNGZXU6BJ6HGOUIT2G42VV46MIVRGQ6/
[Bug 1519785] Review Request: notepadqq - An advanced text editor for developers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519785 --- Comment #21 from j...@kcore.org --- In all honesty, this was a major fsck'up on my end. I've repushed the correct file (I thought I hadn't pushed it out, but appareantely I did). In the future I'll work on branches, not on master ;) -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/4X6QPHZ75TZXYUGQZSIWGHSWFA2NJYWI/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #10 from jiri vanek --- (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #1) > This: > > %global _privatelibs > libjsoundalsa[.]so.*|libsplashscreen[.]so.*|libawt_xawt[.]so.*|libjawt[.]so. > *|libjli[.]so.*|libattach[.]so.*|libawt[.]so.*|libextnet[.]so.*|libjsig[.]so. > *|libawt_headless[.]so.*|libdt_socket[.]so.*|libfontmanager[.]so. > *|libinstrument[.]so.*|libj2gss[.]so.*|libj2pcsc[.]so.*|libj2pkcs11[.]so. > *|libjaas_unix[.]so.*|libjava[.]so.*|libjavajpeg[.]so.*|libjdwp[.]so. > *|libjimage[.]so.*|libjsound[.]so.*|liblcms[.]so.*|libmanagement[.]so. > *|libmanagement_agent[.]so.*|libmanagement_ext[.]so.*|libmlib_image[.]so. > *|libnet[.]so.*|libnio[.]so.*|libprefs[.]so.*|librmi[.]so.*|libsaproc[.]so. > *|libsctp[.]so.*|libsunec[.]so.*|libunpack[.]so.*|libverify[.]so.*|libzip[. > ]so.*|lib[.]so\\(SUNWprivate_.* > > Should be this: > > %global _privatelibs > libsplashscreen[.]so.*|libawt_xawt[.]so.*|libjawt[.]so.*|libjli[.]so. > *|libattach[.]so.*|libawt[.]so.*|libextnet[.]so.*|libjsig[.]so. > *|libawt_headless[.]so.*|libdt_socket[.]so.*|libfontmanager[.]so. > *|libinstrument[.]so.*|libj2gss[.]so.*|libj2pcsc[.]so.*|libj2pkcs11[.]so. > *|libjaas[.]so.*|libjava[.]so.*|libjavajpeg[.]so.*|libjdwp[.]so.*|libjimage[. > ]so.*|libjsound[.]so.*|liblcms[.]so.*|libmanagement[.]so. > *|libmanagement_agent[.]so.*|libmanagement_ext[.]so.*|libmlib_image[.]so. > *|libnet[.]so.*|libnio[.]so.*|libprefs[.]so.*|librmi[.]so.*|libsaproc[.]so. > *|libsctp[.]so.*|libsunec[.]so.*|libunpack[.]so.*|libverify[.]so.*|libzip[. > ]so.* > > lib.so provides isn't generated for JDK 10+, libjaas_unix.so is no longer in > JDK 11, etc. Fixed. You have some sript to generate this befor buid? Or from build itslef? Used. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/C4CQEMZHILGD5L4N7QBJCGTADCWNTS7V/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #9 from jiri vanek --- (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #8) > (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #7) > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=27877911 scratch build. > > That built successfully. Of course it does. I told you :) Working on other hints now. TY! -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/DJ2H25VIBBY3PBU2A3GAOKB7ETA62HDS/
[Bug 1519785] Review Request: notepadqq - An advanced text editor for developers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519785 --- Comment #20 from Ben Rosser --- Just a heads up; https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jdeluyck/notepadqq-packaging/master/Fedora/notepadqq.spec seems to have git merge conflict markers in it... e.g.: === >>> upstream/master The version in the SRPM doesn't, so I'll run final checks over that and then hopefully approve the package. But please be careful with this sort of thing. (In general, you should always make sure the copy of the spec you link and the one that's in the SRPM are the same). -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/HD6RYYSVPZM2WOW7ZTTY6VENC3XHS7RM/
[Bug 1595420] Review Request: ydiff - View colored, incremental diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595420
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 ---
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: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
(unspecified)". 97 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ydiff/review-
ydiff/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-ydiff
[?]: 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.
[Bug 1595420] Review Request: ydiff - View colored, incremental diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595420 --- Comment #6 from Alois Mahdal --- Spec URL: http://file.vornet.cz/tmp/fedora-submit-ydiff/r4/ydiff.spec SRPM URL: http://file.vornet.cz/tmp/fedora-submit-ydiff/r4/ydiff-1.1-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: Term based tool to view colored, incremental diff in a Git/Mercurial/Svn workspace or from stdin, with side by side (similar to diff -y) and auto pager support. Fedora Account System Username: netvor Hi, this is my second package, first Python one, I'll appreciate your mentoring. Here's Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=27899890 -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/SA5KBYVAY4EKFRLXYJJUDC4LDQNTW3HE/
[Bug 1595420] Review Request: ydiff - View colored, incremental diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595420 --- Comment #5 from Alois Mahdal --- You're right, I misunderstood. I don't really need EPEL so I'll drop the py2 stuff. Thanks! -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/FP52B53UKFM7SRO3GJSIC7HLWEIRFIJX/
[Bug 1595420] Review Request: ydiff - View colored, incremental diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595420
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- You misunderstand me: only package the Python 3 lib, Py2 is not needed. Or,
in the case you want to support current EPEL, make a conditional with
%bcond_without python3 to build Py3 for Fedora and Py2 for EPEL:
%if 0%{?rhel} >= 8 || 0%{?fedora} >= 19
%bcond_without python3
%else
%bcond_with python3
%endif
Name: ydiff
Version:1.1
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:View colored, incremental diff
URL:https://github.com/ymattw/ydiff
License:BSD
Source0:
https://github.com/ymattw/ydiff/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
%if %{without python3}
BuildRequires: python2-devel
Requires: python%{python2_pkgversion}-%{name}
%else
BuildRequires: python3-devel
Requires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{name}
%endif
Requires: less
BuildArch: noarch
%description
Term based tool to view colored, incremental diff in a Git/Mercurial/Svn
workspace or from stdin, with side by side (similar to diff -y) and auto
pager support.
%if %{without python3}
%package -n python2-%{name}
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python2-%{name}}
Summary: %{summary}
%description -n python2-%{name}
Python library that implements API used by ydiff tool.
%else
%package -n python3-%{name}
Summary:%{summary}
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{name}}
%description -n python3-%{name}
Python library that implements API used by ydiff tool.
%endif
%prep
%autosetup -n %{name}-%{version}
/usr/bin/sed -i '/#!\/usr\/bin\/env python/d' ydiff.py
%build
%if %{without python3}
%py2_build
%else
%py3_build
%endif
%install
%if %{without python3}
%py2_install
%else
%py3_install
%endif
%files
%doc README.rst
%license LICENSE
%{_bindir}/ydiff
%if %{without python3}
%files -n python2-%{name}
%{python2_sitelib}/%{name}.py
%{python2_sitelib}/%{name}.pyc
%{python2_sitelib}/%{name}.pyo
%{python2_sitelib}/%{name}-*.egg-info
%else
%files -n python3-%{name}
%{python3_sitelib}/__pycache__/*
%{python3_sitelib}/%{name}.py
%{python3_sitelib}/%{name}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info
%endif
If you don't need EPEL, just drop the Py 2 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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/TT47OZ45347MHF6TDYE2MJKFP4PFBJZZ/
[Bug 1519785] Review Request: notepadqq - An advanced text editor for developers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519785 --- Comment #19 from j...@kcore.org --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jdeluyck/notepadqq-packaging/master/Fedora/notepadqq.spec SRPM URL: https://kcore.org/tmp/notepadqq-1.4.8-2.fc28.src.rpm Changelog: - Corrected date and included LICENSE. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/VN6FSOM5LBMMTSXNFZY35VTWTH45F5MS/
[Bug 1595420] Review Request: ydiff - View colored, incremental diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595420 --- Comment #3 from Alois Mahdal --- Spec URL: http://file.vornet.cz/tmp/fedora-submit-ydiff/r1/ydiff.spec SRPM URL: http://file.vornet.cz/tmp/fedora-submit-ydiff/r1/ydiff-1.1-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: Term based tool to view colored, incremental diff in a Git/Mercurial/Svn workspace or from stdin, with side by side (similar to diff -y) and auto pager support. Fedora Account System Username: netvor Hi, this is my second package, first Python one, I'll appreciate your mentoring. Here's Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=27898821 -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/2UMIFSGENW7M7WXSAPG7AMZAED5HWLS7/
[Bug 1595420] Review Request: ydiff - View colored, incremental diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595420
--- Comment #2 from Alois Mahdal ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
> - You should package it with Python 3 not Python 2. Python 2 will be phased
> out from Fedora near 2020:
>
> - You should include the Python provide macro:
>
> BuildRequires: python3-devel
>
>And:
>
> %package -n python3-%{name}
> Summary:%{summary}
> %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{name}}
>
> %description -n python3-%{name}
> Python library that implements API used by ydiff tool.
>
>
> And:
>
> %files -n python3-%{name}
> %{python3_sitelib}/__pycache__/*
> %{python3_sitelib}/%{name}.py
> %{python3_sitelib}/%{name}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info
(I was under the impression that ydiff did not support Python3, looks
like I was wrong.)
I've added the py3 gear. However, the guideline does not seem to match
perfectly on this layout where binary is packaged as own sub-package.
So I "stole" what was missing from fmf/fmf.spec (in particular, the
ydiff subpackage should require and use the python3-ydiff.
> - Should not be needed in %files
>
> %{python2_sitelib}/%{name}.pyc
> %{python2_sitelib}/%{name}.pyo
Anyway, I do get errors when I remove them.
RPM build errors:
error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ydiff.pyc
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ydiff.pyo
Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ydiff.pyc
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ydiff.pyo
The guide actually says that the files should be included, although
it's not clear if that should be done explicity in %files or some RPM
automation does it.
I'll post new version in few 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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/PQUVJJRLJ3USRBPK2MGSCKK4JUTBX3N2/
[Bug 1590431] Review Request: qemu-lite - OpenBIOS development utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1590431 --- Comment #2 from Lokesh Mandvekar --- Seems these rpmlint errors are present on the default qemu package as well, so maybe we can overlook these?? -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/UC7ZNFQ63STB2VJTI4CAPJVG27DJORO3/
[Bug 1595644] Review Request: perl-UUID-URandom - UUIDs based on /dev/ urandom
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595644 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-UUID-URandom-0.001-1.f ||c29 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2018-06-27 10:10:08 --- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/AMAY6M34CMSTAXQOLRGMFC452HXCPAWX/
[Bug 1559864] Review Request: gluster-collectd plugin to collect metrics and push to collectd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1559864
Sachidananda Urs changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(s...@redhat.com) |
--- Comment #7 from Sachidananda Urs ---
(In reply to Venkata R Edara from comment #4)
> Sorry for delay, I made changes to spec file , now the build is success.
>
> SPEC:
> https://github.com/gluster/gluster-collectd/blob/master/gluster-collectd.spec
>
* Instead of /usr/share use the _datadir macro.
> Requires : collectd >= 5.8.0
> Requires : collectd-python >= 5.8.0
If the fedora releases targeted has latest above 5.8.x you can ignore the
version numbers.
> %{__python2} setup.py build
* py2_build macro should achieve this. Have you tried it?
Below is a comment from Ken Dreyer from another package. Since I see python2 in
many places, I think it is still relevant.
Can this package work with Python 3 instead of Python 2? Maybe it would be a
good idea to add a comment to the .spec file explaining why this will not work
with Python 3 if that is the case.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FinalizingFedoraSwitchtoPython3 is coming
eventually. You could conditionalize py2/py3 with "%if %{?rhel} < 8" if you
want to share the same .spec file across RHEL 7 and 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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/LJZ44N2MSUVG3YDFFEEMQ6FCOFD5DEDQ/
[Bug 1595644] Review Request: perl-UUID-URandom - UUIDs based on /dev/ urandom
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595644 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-UUID-URandom -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ZE5ZUXDATBQUYDRJUN3CR5ISYR4KOHBS/
[Bug 1595658] Review Request: slibtool - A skinny libtool implementation, written in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595658 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/slibtool -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YLJM7FMJN5OZOFJAAUD4B4ZUQBQP7KOF/
[Bug 1538824] Review Request: python-grabbit - Get grabby with file trees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538824 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-grabbit -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/67VO6IIDXWTEDVFRB3A4HU2CHIQR5GAN/
[Bug 1582829] Review Request: scdoc - Tool for generating roff manual pages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1582829 Timothée Floure changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2018-06-27 09:11:35 -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/KPEISQGHA4YTNWTYMGNNIOD3NESOVNF5/
[Bug 1585565] Review Request: shaman - man pages viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1585565
--- Comment #14 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- [!]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI
Note: shaman subpackage is not noarch. Please verify manually
Your package should be noarch.
BuildArch: noarch
- Your .desktop file is linking to /bin/shaman: it should be /usr/bin/shaman:
[Desktop Entry]
Version=1.0
Type=Application
Name=Shaman
GenericName=Shaman
Comment=Man pages viewer
Exec=/usr/bin/shaman %F
Icon=shaman
Terminal=false
Categories=Applications;Utility;
Name[en_US]=shaman
- The THANKS file is empty, don't install it with %doc
- Remove the comment %global debug_package %{nil} and/or escape the macros
which are in comment by doubling the %:
* Tue Jun 26 2018 Mohammed Isam 1.0-5
- Fixed the spec file (added %%jpackage_script BuildRequires clause)
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: "GPL", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "GFDL (v1.7
or later)". 32 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/shaman/review-
shaman/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java
[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]: Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if
package has .info files.
Note: Texinfo .info file(s) in shaman
[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 20480 bytes in 5 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven:
[-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #8 from Severin Gehwolf --- (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #7) > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=27877911 scratch build. That built successfully. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/E3FDDP5RSJAMN3PXHUKZKI42N23YVM57/
[Bug 1577011] Review Request: wiringpi - PIN based GPIO access library for BCM283x SoC devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577011 --- Comment #10 from Peter Oliver --- It turns out that it's possible to explicitly request sponsorship by raising an issue at https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/RBG2HCA3TVU2GNSKTPREE7BT5C4AULEI/
[Bug 1585565] Review Request: shaman - man pages viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1585565 --- Comment #13 from Mohammed Isam --- Spec URL: https://mohammedisam.fedorapeople.org/shaman.spec SRPM URL: https://mohammedisam.fedorapeople.org/shaman-1.0-5.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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/KCBGVRTMENLCS4XKNRBJQZGWLGVBJPVL/
[Bug 1585565] Review Request: shaman - man pages viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1585565 --- Comment #12 from Mohammed Isam --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #11) > I can't find these icons anywhere. There's no shaman.appdata.xml or > shaman.desktop either. Are you sure you uploaded the right archive to your > website? It seems it's not the same one as in the SRPM, that's why it fails > since I'm downloading the original during build. Please update it. Awww, my bad. You are absolutely right, I forgot to upload the correct tar archive. I fixed this now. > Also you need to add javapackages-tools as a BR to use > %jpackage_script Fixed. Would you please check it again? -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/7BSTZKUNOQTJD4ZLJ3B7HQZR2SJCVVHD/
[Bug 1585565] Review Request: shaman - man pages viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1585565 --- Comment #11 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Still doesn't work: + cp -p shaman-256.png /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/shaman-1.0-4.fc29.x86_64/usr/share/icons/hicolor/256x256/apps/shaman.png BUILDSTDERR: cp: cannot stat 'shaman-256.png': No such file or directory I can't find these icons anywhere. There's no shaman.appdata.xml or shaman.desktop either. Are you sure you uploaded the right archive to your website? It seems it's not the same one as in the SRPM, that's why it fails since I'm downloading the original during build. Please update it. Also you need to add javapackages-tools as a BR to use %jpackage_script -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/WOM36BBYC7D346OU7PCOE6OL6WNUA44N/
[Bug 1481628] Review Request: Qt-SESAM - Super Easy & Secure Authentication Management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1481628 --- Comment #7 from Raphael Groner --- libqrencode needs unbundling, too. There's a package qrencode-libs in Fedora. https://fukuchi.org/works/qrencode/ -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/VDHR6WISCJ6VRXM5JHRTK2LZXXLPZNC4/
[Bug 1576413] Review Request: boom-boot - boot manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576413 --- Comment #22 from Marian Csontos --- Hi Neal, have you found some time to look at this? NOTE: There is a new boom version 0.9 - this is the same as the previously built version except the version and one small patch. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/csonto/fedpkg-boom-boot/master/boom-boot.spec SRPM URL: https://mcsontos.fedorapeople.org/boom-boot/boom-boot-0.9-1.fc29.src.rpm Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=27894771 -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/KPSCPEMW55RUB5B5NBWDZO5I2C3ZCIFY/
[Bug 1585565] Review Request: shaman - man pages viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1585565 --- Comment #10 from Mohammed Isam --- Spec URL: https://mohammedisam.fedorapeople.org/shaman.spec SRPM URL: https://mohammedisam.fedorapeople.org/shaman-1.0-4.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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/NRXKP5UD5XGHYKDIUI4LQB3O72MZEK34/
[Bug 1585565] Review Request: shaman - man pages viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1585565 --- Comment #9 from Mohammed Isam --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #8) > - Build error: > Preparing build tree > mkdir -p build > Creating info file from texi source > makeinfo info/shaman.texi > BUILDSTDERR: make: makeinfo: Command not found > BUILDSTDERR: make: *** [Makefile:94: shaman.info] Error 127 > >It seems you need to add texinfo as a BR Fixed. > - Another build error: > cp src/mima/shaman/*.java build > cd build; javac -g -d out -sourcepath . Utility.java ShamanMainWindow.java > Cache.java FindDialog.java HelpScreen.java ManDBParser.java > ManpageDocument.java ManpageDocumentLoader.java ManualSection.java > ProgressDialog.java SettingsDialog.java Shaman.java TreeElement.java > Updater.java FileFilterAllFormats.java FileFilterHTML.java > FileFilterManpages.java FileFilterTXT.java; \ > [ $? -eq 0 ] || exit 2 > BUILDSTDERR: /bin/sh: javac: command not found > BUILDSTDERR: make: *** [Makefile:71: build/shaman.jar] Error 2 > BUILDSTDERR: make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs > >Please make sure you've got all the BR needed to build that package and > do a build with mock. ( I did. Mock build succeeded (I didn't get any errors down to the line that says Finish: run). The log files are also error-free. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/QO6G4KR24FVVT7JPOFY6CY5ACTM6M3HY/
[Bug 1595658] Review Request: slibtool - A skinny libtool implementation, written in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595658
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 ---
- Group: is not needed in Fedora
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]: 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 81 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/slibtool/review-slibtool/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.
[-]: 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 30720 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: 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 1369465] Review Request: rubygem-resolve-hostname - Hostname resolver with caching
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369465 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2018-06-27 05:47:20 --- Comment #7 from Matthias Runge --- The package has been imported into Fedora. Closing this bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/OKJ3JTWURYDP6Z4U2GJDXPQOU55X6CA6/
[Bug 1369471] Review Request: rubygem-fluent-plugin-secure-forward - Fluentd input/ output plugin to forward over SSL with authentications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369471 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added CC||yguen...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(yguenane@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #5 from Matthias Runge --- I'm just stumbling upon this. It doesn't seem to be imported in Fedora yet. If you're still interested in that, please request a branch, otherwise please close the bug. 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/IDC435O4MO7YKIWV6DNOQL7TNMGWXEPN/
[Bug 1343895] Review Request: python-xunitmerge - utility for merging multiple XUnit xml reports into a single xml report
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343895 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2018-06-27 05:44:34 --- Comment #11 from Matthias Runge --- Package is included in Fedora. Closing this bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ZYOTKG43IHHE2XEAKMO4A7KJ47CH24HR/
[Bug 1595644] Review Request: perl-UUID-URandom - UUIDs based on /dev/ urandom
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595644 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 --- URL and Source addresses are Ok. Source archive (SHA-256: 3f13631b13b9604fb489e2989490c99f103743a837239bdafae9d6baf55f8f46) is original. Ok. Summary verified from lib/UUID/URandom.pm. Ok. Description verified from lib/UUID/URandom.pm. Ok. License verified from lib/UUID/URandom.pm and LICENSE. Ok. No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok. All tests pass. Ok. $ rpmlint perl-UUID-URandom.spec review-perl-UUID-URandom/results/perl-UUID-URandom-0.001-1.fc29.noarch.rpm review-perl-UUID-URandom/results/perl-UUID-URandom-0.001-1.fc29.src.rpm perl-UUID-URandom.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dev -> deb, derv, div perl-UUID-URandom.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dev -> deb, derv, div 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpm -q -lv -p perl-UUID-URandom-0.001-1.fc29.noarch.rpm drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 juin 27 11:34 /usr/share/doc/perl-UUID-URandom -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3460 avril 3 23:08 /usr/share/doc/perl-UUID-URandom/CONTRIBUTING.mkdn -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 110 avril 3 23:08 /usr/share/doc/perl-UUID-URandom/Changes -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2205 avril 3 23:08 /usr/share/doc/perl-UUID-URandom/README drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 juin 27 11:34 /usr/share/licenses/perl-UUID-URandom -rw-r--r--1 rootroot11500 avril 3 23:08 /usr/share/licenses/perl-UUID-URandom/LICENSE -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2217 juin 27 11:34 /usr/share/man/man3/UUID::URandom.3pm.gz drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 juin 27 11:34 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/UUID -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3845 avril 3 23:08 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/UUID/URandom.pm File permissions and layout are Ok. $ rpm -q --requires -p perl-UUID-URandom-0.001-1.fc29.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.26.2) 1 perl(:VERSION) >= 5.8.0 1 perl(Crypt::URandom) >= 0.36 1 perl(Exporter) >= 5.57 1 perl(strict) 1 perl(warnings) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 Binary requires are Ok. $ rpm -q --provides -p perl-UUID-URandom-0.001-1.fc29.noarch.rpm perl(UUID::URandom) = 0.001 perl-UUID-URandom = 0.001-1.fc29 Binary provides are Ok. Package builds in F29 (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=27894597) Ok The package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines. Resolution: 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/UNVMTTYM5EPEVITH6ZYKF3NRZMID44ZC/
[Bug 1595658] New: Review Request: slibtool - A skinny libtool implementation, written in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595658 Bug ID: 1595658 Summary: Review Request: slibtool - A skinny libtool implementation, written in C Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ngomp...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://kinginuyasha.enanocms.org/downloads/slibtool.spec SRPM URL: http://kinginuyasha.enanocms.org/downloads/slibtool-0.5.20-0.fc28.1.src.rpm Description: 'slibtool' is an independent reimplementation of the widely used libtool, written in C. 'slibtool' is designed to be a clean, fast, easy-to-use libtool drop-in replacement, and is accordingly aimed at package authors, distro developers, and system integrators. 'slibtool' maintains compatibility with libtool in nearly every aspect of the tool's functionality as well as semantics, leaving out (or turning into a no-op) only a small number of features that are no longer needed on modern systems. Being a compiled binary, and although not primarily written for the sake of performance, building a package with 'slibtool' is often faster than with its script-based counterpart. The resulting performance gain would normally vary between packages, and is most noticeable in builds that invoke libtool a large number of times, and which are characterized by the short compilation duration of individual translation units. Fedora Account System Username: ngompa -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/KCUBZSKLASKBFG4IYCW5CMF5DQOM3QNV/
[Bug 1595420] Review Request: ydiff - View colored, incremental diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595420
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Should not be needed in %files
%{python2_sitelib}/%{name}.pyc
%{python2_sitelib}/%{name}.pyo
- You should package it with Python 3 not Python 2. Python 2 will be phased
out from Fedora near 2020:
- You should include the Python provide macro:
BuildRequires: python3-devel
And:
%package -n python3-%{name}
Summary:%{summary}
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{name}}
%description -n python3-%{name}
Python library that implements API used by ydiff tool.
And:
%files -n python3-%{name}
%{python3_sitelib}/__pycache__/*
%{python3_sitelib}/%{name}.py
%{python3_sitelib}/%{name}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info
--
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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/VRHIRBZ2OL64LBWABGJI3YUIU47LLOXM/
[Bug 1595644] Review Request: perl-UUID-URandom - UUIDs based on /dev/ urandom
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595644 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1595478 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595478 [Bug 1595478] perl-MongoDB-v2.0.0 is available -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/MN3OB7TF4JGDYBPBT4VIDHOYMUGA52X3/
[Bug 1595644] New: Review Request: perl-UUID-URandom - UUIDs based on /dev /urandom
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595644 Bug ID: 1595644 Summary: Review Request: perl-UUID-URandom - UUIDs based on /dev/urandom Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-UUID-URandom/perl-UUID-URandom.spec SRPM URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-UUID-URandom/perl-UUID-URandom-0.001-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: This Perl module provides a portable, secure generator of RFC-4122 version 4 random UUIDs. Fedora Account System Username: ppisar -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/54MACWIUB2HTAT3OLVUBVDTC3UENUW5P/
[Bug 1595493] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-phpdomain - Sphinx extension to enable documenting PHP code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595493
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 =
Generic:
[ ]: 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: "BSD (unspecified)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated",
"*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 11 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-
sphinxcontrib-phpdomain/review-python-sphinxcontrib-
phpdomain/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/lib/python3.6/site-
packages/sphinxcontrib(python3-sphinxcontrib-spelling, python3
-sphinxcontrib-bibtex, python3-sphinxcontrib-adadomain, python3
-sphinxcontrib-programoutput, python3-sphinxcontrib-fulltoc, python3
-sphinxcontrib-actdiag, python3-sphinxcontrib-issuetracker, python3
-sphinxcontrib-blockdiag, python3-sphinxcontrib-autoprogram, python3
-sphinxcontrib-httpdomain), /usr/lib/python2.7/site-
packages/sphinxcontrib(python2-sphinxcontrib-cheeseshop, python2
-sphinxcontrib-adadomain, python2-sphinxcontrib-spelling, python2
-sphinxcontrib-actdiag, python2-sphinxcontrib-issuetracker, python2
-sphinxcontrib-programoutput, python2-sphinxcontrib-httpdomain,
python2-sphinxcontrib-autoprogram, python2-sphinxcontrib-blockdiag,
python2-sphinxcontrib-bibtex, python2-sphinxcontrib-fulltoc),
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/sphinxcontrib/__pycache__(python3
-sphinxcontrib-seqdiag, python3-sphinxcontrib-adadomain, python3
-sphinxcontrib-fulltoc, python3-sphinxcontrib-actdiag, python3
-sphinxcontrib-blockdiag, python3-sphinxcontrib-autoprogram, python3
-sphinxcontrib-httpdomain)
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 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
[Bug 1559864] Review Request: gluster-collectd plugin to collect metrics and push to collectd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1559864 Sahina Bose changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sab...@redhat.com, ||s...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(s...@redhat.com) --- Comment #6 from Sahina Bose --- Sachi, could you help here -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/ANHYHAC3QAYVRA47HGT3FRLHIHKY34JC/
