[Bug 1596922] Review Request: python-pipdeptree - Command line utility to show dependency tree of package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596922 --- Comment #9 from Dhanesh B. Sabane --- Missed the links. [1] https://github.com/naiquevin/pipdeptree/blob/master/Makefile [2] https://pagure.io/rpm-packaging/raw/master/f/python-pipdeptree/python-pipdeptree.spec [3] https://pagure.io/rpm-packaging/blob/master/f/python-pipdeptree/python-pipdeptree-0.13.0-1.fc28.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/IGIJFEBPZZ24S36C6DY2TVYEHFFF6PAO/
[Bug 1596922] Review Request: python-pipdeptree - Command line utility to show dependency tree of package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596922
--- Comment #8 from Dhanesh B. Sabane ---
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #7)
> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/pytest
>
> Rawhide has 3.6.2-3.fc29
>
Ahh.. I thought F28 had pytest 3.6
> You can do:
>
> %if %{fedora} > 28
> ...testy testy test...
> %endif
>
> if you want single spec.
>
> Also, have you actually tried with pytest 3.4 and seen that it failed?
I don't think I'll have to do that. After taking some time to understand the
upstream code and the tests, I figured that the tests are run under a virtual
environment. See test-env and test target in the Makefile [1]. So the only
package required for the tests is tox (any version) so as to avoid the `pip
install tox` action in the Makefile.
I've made the required changes to the spec and pushed them [2] [3]. However,
are you sure that this is a safe way to run the tests? I'm a bit skeptical
about pip running as root to install the test dependencies.
--
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/FDSRFGEJK6KE6IJGMKS252SD22ZNA2DX/
[Bug 1598954] Review Request: python-pypubsub - Python Publish-Subscribe Package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598954 --- Comment #2 from Scott Talbert --- Thanks Robert-André! I owe you several beers. :-) Ping me when you need packages reviewed in the future. -- 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/3T462TYIRC2UEMJSUVHLLLOMDZEYMJ7G/
[Bug 1599011] Review Request: drabt - Proof checker for the DRAT proof format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599011 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James --- (In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #1) > Can you review this in return? Absolutely! 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/EQZEJ2Z7B47Y334E243SSGUATXYGIGLH/
[Bug 1599026] Review Request: python-spyder-kernels - Jupyter kernels for the Spyder console
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599026 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jerry James --- I will take this 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 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/SA7BYODM2NASRNXSRJXEGZ7Z5L36OAO2/
[Bug 1599011] Review Request: drabt - Proof checker for the DRAT proof format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599011 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nonamed...@gmail.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 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/M4OVQGHBYOEXDPMTFUGEV7K3ATQ5JMT2/
[Bug 1599011] Review Request: drabt - Proof checker for the DRAT proof format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599011 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nonamed...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Can you review this in return? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599026 -- 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/HJJERU5MN76WJ6OCEY2RINHAHSQ5F3CC/
[Bug 1599026] New: Review Request: python-spyder-kernels - Jupyter kernels for the Spyder console
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599026 Bug ID: 1599026 Summary: Review Request: python-spyder-kernels - Jupyter kernels for the Spyder console Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: nonamed...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-spyder-kernels/python-spyder-kernels.spec SRPM URL: https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-spyder-kernels/python-spyder-kernels-1.0.1-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: This package provides jupyter kernels used by spyder on its IPython console. Fedora Account System Username: nonamedotc -- 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/CWCZUJMUKCKBVBZ7DN6XIWXS72TJDOF3/
[Bug 1595658] Review Request: slibtool - A skinny libtool implementation, written in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595658 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- slibtool-0.5.23-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-d729dd40c2 -- 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/KJQRSVCUTKZBX27PJOAUDLGIT5WEAATN/
[Bug 1595658] Review Request: slibtool - A skinny libtool implementation, written in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595658 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- slibtool-0.5.23-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-1168925b49 -- 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/CNZ2DFRPIOSRVOIXOHASM7PQ4P5UH7FH/
[Bug 1595658] Review Request: slibtool - A skinny libtool implementation, written in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595658 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- slibtool-0.5.23-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-9262116fe6 -- 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/PCTR3OP3JDIS2NII4N552SOBHTYFFB5R/
[Bug 1595658] Review Request: slibtool - A skinny libtool implementation, written in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595658 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/RQ77SU7CULKUVD3QZTDGUYKMS3TSFYIR/
[Bug 1595658] Review Request: slibtool - A skinny libtool implementation, written in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595658 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- slibtool-0.5.21-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-d729dd40c2 -- 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/5WQJUNFV4RX75MZ2RMO7SFIFQKNLAQBA/
[Bug 1585565] Review Request: shaman - man pages viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1585565 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- shaman-1.1-4.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-25684bbf76 -- 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/6PJUXNPVYE6XVPTPD6HVUNTSFRPACHUI/
[Bug 1596366] Review Request: python-django-helpdesk - Django-helpdesk - A Django powered ticket tracker for small enterprise.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1596366 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- python-django-helpdesk-0.2.7-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-829824db8a -- 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/HGW45DPN3C7TTAOMOXEQMCQQXD7BKFSI/
[Bug 1597287] Review Request: zchunk - Compressed file format that allows easy deltas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1597287 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System --- zchunk-0.7.5-4.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-3dd6fc56e5 -- 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/SRWN6UDQMVOQSJWG4VI24JIUNBMQQNCX/
[Bug 1599012] Review Request: cadical - Simplified SAT solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599012 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1599011 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599011 [Bug 1599011] Review Request: drabt - Proof checker for the DRAT proof format -- 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/TNGLZH6R462GFQRPSOWIV5NME6UBEJ32/
[Bug 1599011] Review Request: drabt - Proof checker for the DRAT proof format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599011 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1599012 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599012 [Bug 1599012] Review Request: cadical - Simplified SAT solver -- 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/CSFGPDVZGE55DME5AZBZTDJTGZKRIXI3/
[Bug 1599012] New: Review Request: cadical - Simplified SAT solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599012 Bug ID: 1599012 Summary: Review Request: cadical - Simplified SAT solver Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/cadical/cadical.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/cadical/cadical-06w-1.fc29.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: CaDiCaL is a simplified Satisfiability solver. The goal of the development of CaDiCaL is to obtain a CDCL solver, which is easy to understand and change, while at the same time not being much slower than other state-of-the-art CDCL solvers. -- 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/QW4HBVDMPQFEGZ5MFRJ7WCB6MX7RHQPP/
[Bug 1599011] New: Review Request: drabt - Proof checker for the DRAT proof format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599011 Bug ID: 1599011 Summary: Review Request: drabt - Proof checker for the DRAT proof format Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/drabt/drabt.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/drabt/drabt-004-1.fc29.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: DRABT is a proof checker for the DRAT proof format. Proofs compressed with gzip, bzip2, xz, zip, and 7zip are supported, but the corresponding decompression binary must be installed (i.e., gunzip, bunzip2, unxz, unzip, or 7z). -- 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/WWO3AM7DU2EF3WZUUA4334L6ANPPD2VW/
[Bug 1599014] New: Review Request: symfpu - An implementation of IEEE-754 / SMT-LIB floating-point
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599014 Bug ID: 1599014 Summary: Review Request: symfpu - An implementation of IEEE-754 / SMT-LIB floating-point Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/symfpu/symfpu.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/symfpu/symfpu-0.20180523.git0444c86-1.fc29.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: SymFPU is an implementation of the SMT-LIB / IEEE-754 operations in terms of bit-vector operations. It is templated in terms of the bit-vectors, propositions, floating-point formats and rounding mode types used. This allow the same code to be executed as an arbitrary precision "SoftFloat" library (although it's performance would not be good) or to be used to build symbolic representation of floating-point operations suitable for use in "bit-blasting" SMT solvers (you could also generate circuits from them but again, performance will likely not be good). -- 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/H3OECPITB6U2TPIYADDCVCULNP5UW64D/
[Bug 1599013] New: Review Request: lfsc - SMT proof checker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1599013 Bug ID: 1599013 Summary: Review Request: lfsc - SMT proof checker Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/lfsc/lfsc.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/lfsc/lfsc-0.20180322-1.fc29.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This package contains an SMT proof checker. Fedora had an lfsc package once upon a time. Then it was absorbed into the cvc4 package. Now the cvc4 developers have decided to split it out as a separate project again, so we need to resurrect the lfsc 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/N37NKKEGPOJZYYXP6HWYH4XRGHMONKGQ/
[Bug 1558224] Review Request: aom - Royalty-free next-generation video format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558224 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- aom-1.0.0-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/P46LKVXFH5EL4J7KOPJR3V3ENC543BOW/
[Bug 1597287] Review Request: zchunk - Compressed file format that allows easy deltas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1597287 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System --- zchunk-0.7.5-4.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-2018-56581ffa1c -- 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/TB5XKTBYK3NANRGEJYCG2KUYOGI3MO2K/
[Bug 1558224] Review Request: aom - Royalty-free next-generation video format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558224 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-07-07 18:16:18 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- aom-1.0.0-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/6WDWIQHAYYODMKNMU47NVWTPVOPBHYHW/
[Bug 1597287] Review Request: zchunk - Compressed file format that allows easy deltas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1597287 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- zchunk-0.7.5-4.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-2018-845969b9d8 -- 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/ZXER3BQL5XHYPL37Y6BUGZ5XK5VSRVSA/
[Bug 1595658] Review Request: slibtool - A skinny libtool implementation, written in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595658 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- slibtool-0.5.21-1.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-2018-1168925b49 -- 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/O3SEQW2KRMVM27U2GUCVRTD3C65KDXJD/
[Bug 1594313] Review Request: java-11-openjdk - next LTS OpenJDK for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #40 from jiri vanek --- All issues you pickd up should be fixed. Thank you for your review! 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.20-1.fc28.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jvanek Work repo - https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/java-openjdk/tree/java-11-openjdk updated Scracth build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=28070907 As it is based on +20 of shenandoah project My local build on shenandoah-arch keep running in time of this posting -- 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/GPFN6PXW7DK3EWNG4HYGSLCTV3NFR2AJ/
[Bug 1585565] Review Request: shaman - man pages viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1585565 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/277H7KPZ5KUDHYHFLDYWKMOC6XIHPKMB/
[Bug 1573634] Review Request: python3-img2pdf - a lossless images -> PDF converter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573634 William Moreno changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flags||fedora-review+ Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/FUZSR2D6DFRIMM3FHMI2FVECVVCMKFLX/
[Bug 1573634] Review Request: python3-img2pdf - a lossless images -> PDF converter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1573634 William Moreno changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review+ | --- Comment #10 from William Moreno --- OK I am fine with this packaging, upstream is using LGPV3 but not including the text of the licence with the sources, ping upstream to provide a proper license file. There no python2 subpackage but this is not a great deal. PACKAGE APROVED === You have been sponder in the Fedora Packager Group Regards. Algo good job Robet with 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 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/EB2LNTQHX7IVO7XXL6AXBC5BTBGMF26Z/
[Bug 1595658] Review Request: slibtool - A skinny libtool implementation, written in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595658 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- slibtool-0.5.21-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-d729dd40c2 -- 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/EPT7WZUGJ2CLP3E5NPU5UBCUJMQTTV5J/
[Bug 1595658] Review Request: slibtool - A skinny libtool implementation, written in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595658 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/VZF7FXVTGBAPGHFCWWHHIURWMEEWDTBZ/
[Bug 1595658] Review Request: slibtool - A skinny libtool implementation, written in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1595658 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- slibtool-0.5.21-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-1168925b49 -- 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/HGQHRUBD53RPNPUEXQPBX2DF7NHZI2PX/
[Bug 1598986] Review Request: python-ssh2-python - Super fast SSH library - bindings for libssh2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598986
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "LGPL (v2.1)", "Unknown or generated". 106 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
/python-ssh2-python/review-python-ssh2-python/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 40960 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]: 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).
[Bug 1598982] Review Request: vis - A vim-like editor with structural regex from plan9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598982
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package is good and approved.
You still need to find a sponsor.
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: "ISC", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 227 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/vis/review-vis/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: 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 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
[Bug 1598955] Review Request: python-pypubsub3.3.0 - Python Publish-Subscribe Package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598955
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 ---
- Fix the line encoding:
python2-pypubsub.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/python2-pypubsub/README.txt
python2-pypubsub.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/python2-pypubsub/RELEASE_NOTES.txt
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: "*No copyright* PSF BSD (unspecified)", "BSD (2 clause)",
"MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (unspecified)", "Unknown or generated". 12
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-pypubsub3.3.0/review-python-
pypubsub3.3.0/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[-]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
[Bug 1598954] Review Request: python-pypubsub - Python Publish-Subscribe Package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598954
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 ---
- Fix the line encoding of these two files:
python3-pypubsub.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/python3-pypubsub/README.txt
python3-pypubsub.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/python3-pypubsub/RELEASE_NOTES.txt
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 (unspecified)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated",
"*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 9 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-
pypubsub/review-python-pypubsub/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.7/site-
packages, /usr/lib/python3.7
[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 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
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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from
[Bug 1598921] Review Request: wireless-regdb - Regulatory database for 802.11 wireless networking
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598921
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "ISC", "Unknown or generated". 24 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
/wireless-regdb/review-wireless-regdb/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources
[Bug 1598986] New: Review Request: python-ssh2-python - Super fast SSH library - bindings for libssh2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598986 Bug ID: 1598986 Summary: Review Request: python-ssh2-python - Super fast SSH library - bindings for libssh2 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-ssh2-python.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-ssh2-python-0.15.0-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: Super fast SSH library - bindings for libssh2. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain -- 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/KR2ILNE7YFGOS42RPXJTI74RQTKVME2P/
[Bug 1598982] Review Request: vis - A vim-like editor with structural regex from plan9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598982 j...@sinervo.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/A5XOMR5JGIFAE3SES2Q6CRO4VH22FT4B/
[Bug 1598982] New: Review Request: vis - A vim-like editor with structural regex from plan9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598982 Bug ID: 1598982 Summary: Review Request: vis - A vim-like editor with structural regex from plan9 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: j...@sinervo.fi QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://sham1.sinervo.fi/files/rpm-review/vis/vis.spec SRPM URL: http://sham1.sinervo.fi/files/rpm-review/vis/vis-0.5-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: Vis is a Vim-like modal editor, whose big selling points are that it is legacy-free, is extended with Lua, supports multiple cursors/selections out-of-the-box alongside a command language influenced by the Sam-editor of Plan9, with support for structural regular expressions. Fedora Account System Username: sham1 This is my first package, so I will also need a sponsor. rpmlint gave no warnings nor errors. A koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=28067696 -- 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/MB4E4ZC5DE7FM52N42RNAAOR3YQWG6RF/
[Bug 1597287] Review Request: zchunk - Compressed file format that allows easy deltas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1597287 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- zchunk-0.7.5-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-56581ffa1c -- 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/KV4CDP6XGMV7AWNYNSTZXGLSUGDXOK23/
[Bug 1597287] Review Request: zchunk - Compressed file format that allows easy deltas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1597287 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- zchunk-0.7.5-4.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-845969b9d8 -- 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/SC6TMVH2HWI3HSBQHKD3P4O2KMLC6RCX/
[Bug 1597287] Review Request: zchunk - Compressed file format that allows easy deltas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1597287 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- zchunk-0.7.5-4.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-3dd6fc56e5 -- 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/W32KH5APYRNUQDX3ASGWGXK5JBY5466N/
[Bug 1481630] Review Request: virtualbox-guest-additions - VirtualBox Guest Additions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1481630 --- Comment #83 from Hans de Goede --- Hi, (In reply to Evangelos Foutras from comment #82) > Did you get a chance to look at the pwritev issue? Sorry, not yet. But I've been making good progress on the rest of my TODO list, so I hope to get around to this soon. Regards, Hans -- 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/TLGLYHAOH6CEG7HRVMTJ4DRJ2DA32NDE/
