[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 --- Comment #11 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- (In reply to Artur Iwicki from comment #10) > From what I've seen, libraries in Fedora usually are divided like this: > - main package: stuff needed for running executables using the lib > - devel: headers > - static: stuff needed for static compilation > - tools: any library-related executables > As such, my personal suggestion would be to make the -devel package provide > the -static package (already done from what I see), put the binary in > -tools, and omit the main package. Done. Updated spec/srpm: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libb64/libb64.spec https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libb64/libb64-1.2-3.fc29.src.rpm Scratch builds: F30: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30721323 F29: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30721330 -- 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
[Bug 1647312] New: Review Request: perl-Text-xSV - Read character separated files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647312 Bug ID: 1647312 Summary: Review Request: perl-Text-xSV - Read character separated files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: emman...@seyman.fr QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Text-xSV/perl-Text-xSV.spec SRPM URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Text-xSV/perl-Text-xSV-0.21-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: This module is for reading and writing a common variation of character separated data. The most common example is comma-separated. However that is far from the only possibility, the same basic format is exported by Microsoft products using tabs, colons, or other characters. Fedora Account System Username: eseyman Rpmlint Output: 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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
[Bug 1647311] New: Review Request: perl-Plack-Middleware-Session - Middleware for session management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647311 Bug ID: 1647311 Summary: Review Request: perl-Plack-Middleware-Session - Middleware for session management Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: emman...@seyman.fr QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Plack-Middleware-Session/perl-Plack-Middleware-Session.spec SRPM URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Plack-Middleware-Session/perl-Plack-Middleware-Session-0.30-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: This is a Plack Middleware component for session management. By default it will use cookies to keep session state and store data in memory. This distribution also comes with other state and store solutions. Fedora Account System Username: eseyman Rpmlint Output: 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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
[Bug 1646965] Review Request: php-elvanto-litemoji - Conversion of unicode , HTML and shortcode emoji
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1646965 --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet --- Thanks! SCM requests https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/8723 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/8724 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/8725 -- 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
[Bug 1642736] Review Request: python-leveldb - Python bindings for leveldb database library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1642736 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- python-leveldb-0.194-1.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
[Bug 1638968] Review Request: libneurosim - Common interfaces for neuronal simulators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638968 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-11-07 01:19:16 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- libneurosim-0-2.20181028.git7d074da.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
[Bug 1643266] Review Request: python-libNeuroML - Python libNeuroML for working with neuronal models specified in NeuroML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643266 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System --- python-libNeuroML-0.2.45-5.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
[Bug 1645367] Review Request: rcm - management suite for dotfiles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645367 --- Comment #2 from Link Dupont --- Thanks. I've updated the Spec and SRPM. Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/linkdupont/public_git/rcm.git/plain/rcm.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~linkdupont/srpms/rcm-1.3.3-2.fc29.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
[Bug 1640695] Review Request: udica - A tool for generating SELinux security policies for containers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1640695 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- udica-0.1.1-2.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
[Bug 1642736] Review Request: python-leveldb - Python bindings for leveldb database library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1642736 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- python-leveldb-0.194-1.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
[Bug 1643266] Review Request: python-libNeuroML - Python libNeuroML for working with neuronal models specified in NeuroML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643266 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-11-06 21:04:37 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- python-libNeuroML-0.2.45-5.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
[Bug 1647254] Review Request: libidn1.34 - Internationalized Domain Name support library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647254 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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
[Bug 1647254] Review Request: libidn1.34 - Internationalized Domain Name support library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647254 --- Comment #2 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- Per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Process , this doesn't require a review since it's a parallel-installable version of existing libidn 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
[Bug 1647254] Review Request: libidn1.34 - Internationalized Domain Name support library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647254 --- Comment #1 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- This is an F29+ only package to support some third party applications linked against libidn.so.11. -- 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
[Bug 1647254] New: Review Request: libidn1.34 - Internationalized Domain Name support library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647254 Bug ID: 1647254 Summary: Review Request: libidn1.34 - Internationalized Domain Name support library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: domi...@greysector.net QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/libidn1.34/libidn1.34.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/libidn1.34/libidn1.34-1.34-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: GNU Libidn is an implementation of the Stringprep, Punycode and IDNA specifications defined by the IETF Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) working group, used for internationalized domain names. Fedora Account System Username: rathann -- 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
[Bug 1645768] Review Request: python-duecredit - Automated collection and reporting of citations for used software /methods/datasets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645768 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- python-duecredit-0.6.4-2.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-a61ca72ac6 -- 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
[Bug 1641822] Review Request: golang-github-goftp-server - A FTP server framework written in Golang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1641822 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-goftp-server-0-0.1.20181105git1fd52c8.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-2018-1f3b100ab8 -- 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
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 --- Comment #10 from Artur Iwicki --- From what I've seen, libraries in Fedora usually are divided like this: - main package: stuff needed for running executables using the lib - devel: headers - static: stuff needed for static compilation - tools: any library-related executables As such, my personal suggestion would be to make the -devel package provide the -static package (already done from what I see), put the binary in -tools, and omit the main 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
[Bug 1645917] Review Request: python-nitime - Timeseries analysis for neuroscience data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645917 --- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Thanks for the review, Robert! (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > - Use %bcond_with/bcond_without for these: These commands do not work on koji, so I don't find them particularly useful. I've got to then change the spec before committing to SCM, and I only use scratch builds to test my packages where these commands don't work either. > > # Multiple tests fail > %global run_tests 0 > > # The documentation fails to build on F29, so we'll just point to upstream > # documentation > %global with_doc 0 > > > # Requires nibabel which is only available for python3-nibabel > %global with_py2 0 > > > - Py2 package: THANKS should be in a %doc not %license Gah---corrected. > > - Build was successful with doc and tests in Rawhide. I suggest enabling > them. Unfortunately not. The tests fail on i686: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30715258 Igor already reported these upstream. I've added the tickets as comments to the spec file (and bumped them too). I've enabled the docs on rawhide (F30+). > > - Remove the sphinx-build leftovers: > > python-nitime-doc.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/share/doc/python-nitime-doc/html/.buildinfo Removed. > > - You doc subpackage should be noarch Corrected. > Generic: > [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package > is arched. > Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 8376320 bytes in /usr/share This was the -doc sub package that has been corrected. > series, Time-series, Timeservers > python3-nitime.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) neuroscience -> > pseudoscience > python3-nitime.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US neuroscience > -> pseudoscience Eh? Neuroscience is NOT pseudoscience!! XD > python-nitime-doc.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Documentation for > python-nitime. Corrected. > python-nitime-doc.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/share/doc/python-nitime-doc/html/.buildinfo Removed. New F29 build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30715539 New rawhide build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30715529 Updated spec/srpm: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-nitime/python-nitime.spec https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-nitime/python-nitime-0.8-0.2.git1fab571.fc29.src.rpm Cheers, Ankur -- 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
[Bug 1645768] Review Request: python-duecredit - Automated collection and reporting of citations for used software /methods/datasets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645768 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-duecredit-0.6.4-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-af26dc28f1 -- 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
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848
--- Comment #9 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #8)
> > Can you please be more clear on what I'm missing here? Is it the addition of
> > -O3 to the flags? I've corrected that bit now, but you'll have to point out
> > what else I'm missing, I'm afraid.
>
> Yes, -O3 and possibly more flags that override Fedora's defaults. The
> guidelines offer multiple choices how to handle such a case. Removing -O3 is
> the most plausible option.
I've removed the flags that upstream was adding.
>
>
> > I've now copied bits from wikipedia too. How is this?
>
> The primary issue remains. The base package "libb64" does not contain a
> library. It also doesn't contain the source code. It contains only the
> command-line executable with nothing in the %description commenting on it or
> its strengths compared with the tool from coreutils.
>
> Is the primary interest in the library and API or the executable? I
> understand that you need the lib as buildreq for other packages, but if
> shipping the tool in a separate non-devel package starting with a "lib"
> prefix in its name, the package description should mention that.
>
> Note that you could also build a "libb64-tools" subpackage instead, even if
> it's only a single executable.
I've updated the description of the main package to mention that it includes
the tool, and that users should install the -devel package if they wish to
develop using the library:
"This package provides the %{name}-b64 binary tool for encoding to and decoding
from the Base64 scheme. Please install the %{name}-devel package to develop
software using %{name}."
Do you think that's clear enough? If not, I'll put the binary into a separate
-tools subpackage.
Updated spec/srpm:
https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libb64/libb64.spec
https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/libb64/libb64-1.2-3.fc29.src.rpm
Cheers,
Ankur
--
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
[Bug 1645340] Review Request: rust-termios-devel - Safe bindings for the termios library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645340 Henrik Boeving changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed|2018-11-06 17:25:52 |2018-11-06 17:25:52 --- Comment #1 from Henrik Boeving --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1624723 *** -- 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
[Bug 1624723] Review Request: rust-termios - Safe bindings for the termios library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624723 Henrik Boeving changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) CC||hargo...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Henrik Boeving --- *** Bug 1645340 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 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
[Bug 1509679] Review Request: rofi - A window switcher, application launcher and dmenu replacement
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679 --- Comment #11 from Jan Pokorný --- Good catch about the license file, everything else looks good, just let me do the final dive. Re bundled libraries: if there are no versions to practically relate to, I wouldn't do anything more on that front. * * * Re copr for sway beta (feel free to adopt as you wish, in preparation to finalized release, note that some BRs can be overapproximated set imposed with previous state of affairs, didn't attempt to establish deps from scratch): https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jpokorny/sway-testing/build/820081/ (note that https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1158154 did not make it set of up2date packages recognized in the external repo, yet, so had that rebuild within copr as well) Issues I hit: https://github.com/swaywm/sway/issues/2898 https://github.com/swaywm/wlroots/issues/958 (may not be 1.0 specific) -- 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
[Bug 1634957] Review Request: python-test_server - Server to test HTTP clients, written in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1634957 --- Comment #25 from Raphael Groner --- There's another issue. Enabled tests for python-requests run into "Connection refused" errors. Investigating. -- 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
[Bug 1645768] Review Request: python-duecredit - Automated collection and reporting of citations for used software /methods/datasets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645768 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-duecredit-0.6.4-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-c659fbecc6 -- 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
[Bug 1641822] Review Request: golang-github-goftp-server - A FTP server framework written in Golang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1641822 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-goftp-server-0-0.1.20181105git1fd52c8.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2018-23b0b8450a -- 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
[Bug 1645922] Review Request: gsignond-plugin-lastfm - Last.FM plugin for gsignond
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645922 --- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini --- Thanks for the review! dist-git Repository request: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/8721 -- 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
[Bug 1647009] Review Request: cacti-spine - High performance poller for cacti
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647009 --- Comment #2 from Morten Stevens --- Hi Robert-André, Thanks for the quick review. I have uploaded the updated SPEC file and SRPM. https://mstevens.fedorapeople.org/cacti-spine/cacti-spine.spec https://mstevens.fedorapeople.org/cacti-spine/cacti-spine-1.1.38-1.fc30.src.rpm All complaints should now be fixed. Please check. I have also submitted a merge request to fix the obsoleted m4s. It's already merged. https://github.com/Cacti/spine/commit/900df4aa173129d08c03936e45a0f1c10053f660 -- 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
[Bug 1647147] Review Request: pmdk-convert - Conversion tool for PMDK pools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647147 Marcin Ślusarz changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1634347 -- 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
[Bug 1647145] Review Request: libpmemobj-cpp - C++ bindings for libpmemobj
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647145 Marcin Ślusarz changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1634347 -- 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
[Bug 1647147] Review Request: pmdk-convert - Conversion tool for PMDK pools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647147 Marcin Ślusarz changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1488828 -- 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
[Bug 1647145] Review Request: libpmemobj-cpp - C++ bindings for libpmemobj
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647145 Marcin Ślusarz changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1488828 -- 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
[Bug 1645917] Review Request: python-nitime - Timeseries analysis for neuroscience data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645917
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 ---
- Use %bcond_with/bcond_without for these:
# Multiple tests fail
%global run_tests 0
# The documentation fails to build on F29, so we'll just point to upstream
# documentation
%global with_doc 0
# Requires nibabel which is only available for python3-nibabel
%global with_py2 0
- Py2 package: THANKS should be in a %doc not %license
- Build was successful with doc and tests in Rawhide. I suggest enabling them.
- Remove the sphinx-build leftovers:
python-nitime-doc.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/doc/python-nitime-doc/html/.buildinfo
- You doc subpackage should be noarch
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[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.
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 "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or
generated". 160 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-nitime/review-
python-nitime/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 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]: 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
[Bug 1647147] New: Review Request: pmdk-convert - Conversion tool for PMDK pools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647147 Bug ID: 1647147 Summary: Review Request: pmdk-convert - Conversion tool for PMDK pools Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: high Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: marcin.slus...@intel.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/marcinslusarz/packages/master/pmdk-convert/pmdk-convert.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/marcinslusarz/packages/raw/master/pmdk-convert/pmdk-convert-1.5-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: pmdk-convert is a tool for conversion of PMDK pools from any version to any consecutive version. Currently only libpmemobj pools require conversion and this tool supports only those kind of pools. pmdk-convert became a separate project from PMDK with the 1.5 release. Fedora Account System Username: marcinslusarz -- 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
[Bug 1647145] New: Review Request: libpmemobj-cpp - C++ bindings for libpmemobj
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647145 Bug ID: 1647145 Summary: Review Request: libpmemobj-cpp - C++ bindings for libpmemobj Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: high Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: marcin.slus...@intel.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/marcinslusarz/packages/master/libpmemobj-cpp/libpmemobj-cpp.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/marcinslusarz/packages/raw/master/libpmemobj-cpp/libpmemobj-cpp-1.5-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: This package contains header files for libpmemobj C++ bindings and C++ containers built on top of them. libpmemobj-cpp became a separate project from PMDK with the 1.5 release. Fedora Account System Username: marcinslusarz -- 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
[Bug 1645294] Review Request: delve - Debugger for Go programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645294 --- Comment #10 from Derek Parker --- Is there anyone reviewing the above request for `golang.org/x/arch`? Once that is in and unblocks this package I'd love to move forward. -- 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
[Bug 1645922] Review Request: gsignond-plugin-lastfm - Last.FM plugin for gsignond
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645922
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 ---
- date should be the date where you took the snapshot, not the date of the
commit:
%global commitdate 20180507
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[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.
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: "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gsignond-plugin-lastfm
/review-gsignond-plugin-lastfm/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 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
gsignond-plugin-lastfm-debuginfo , gsignond-plugin-lastfm-debugsource
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in
[Bug 1646582] Review Request: lumail - Modern console-based e-mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1646582
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Duplicate line:
BuildRequires: file-devel
BuildRequires: file-devel
- Group: is not used in Fedora
- Could use %autosetup -p1 instead of:
%setup -q
%patch0 -p1
%patch1 -p1
- %{_prefix}/lib/lumail
Suspicious, shouldn't this be in %{_libdir}? You should overwrite
LUMAIL_LIBS?=$(DESTDIR)$(PREFIX)/lib/lumail
--
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
[Bug 1646795] Review Request: linux-system-roles - Set of interfaces for unified system management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1646795
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
This:
%license %{_pkgdocdir}/*/COPYING
%license %{_pkgdocdir}/*/LICENSE
%license %{_datadir}/ansible/roles/%{roleprefix}kdump/COPYING
%license %{_datadir}/ansible/roles/%{roleprefix}postfix/COPYING
%license %{_datadir}/ansible/roles/%{roleprefix}selinux/COPYING
%license %{_datadir}/ansible/roles/%{roleprefix}timesync/COPYING
%license %{_datadir}/ansible/roles/%{roleprefix}network/LICENSE
ain't gonna work. You'll end up overwriting COPYING and LICENSE files. You need
to rename them first then install them.
- Don't %doc files already in %{_pkgdocdir}
%doc %{_pkgdocdir}/*/example-*-playbook.yml
%doc %{_pkgdocdir}/network/example-inventory
%doc %{_pkgdocdir}/timesync/example-multiple-ntp-servers.yml
%doc %{_pkgdocdir}/timesync/example-single-pool.yml
%doc %{_pkgdocdir}/*/README.md
%doc %{_pkgdocdir}/*/README.html
- This won't work either, it will overwrite the READMEs:
%doc %{_datadir}/ansible/roles/%{roleprefix}kdump/README.md
%doc %{_datadir}/ansible/roles/%{roleprefix}postfix/README.md
%doc %{_datadir}/ansible/roles/%{roleprefix}selinux/README.md
%doc %{_datadir}/ansible/roles/%{roleprefix}timesync/README.md
%doc %{_datadir}/ansible/roles/%{roleprefix}network/README.md
%doc %{_datadir}/ansible/roles/%{roleprefix}kdump/README.html
%doc %{_datadir}/ansible/roles/%{roleprefix}postfix/README.html
%doc %{_datadir}/ansible/roles/%{roleprefix}selinux/README.html
%doc %{_datadir}/ansible/roles/%{roleprefix}timesync/README.html
%doc %{_datadir}/ansible/roles/%{roleprefix}network/README.html
Also I don't see how this is necessary as you already copied the READMEs in
pkgdocdir. You shouldn't copy the licenses in pkgdocdir too.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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
[Bug 1646965] Review Request: php-elvanto-litemoji - Conversion of unicode , HTML and shortcode emoji
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1646965
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:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 9 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
/php-elvanto-litemoji/review-php-elvanto-litemoji/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 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.
[x]: %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 can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless
[Bug 1629371] Review Request: mock-install - A small utility to request package installation within a mock buildroot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1629371 --- Comment #7 from Nicolas Mailhot --- Thanks for the review ! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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
[Bug 1647009] Review Request: cacti-spine - High performance poller for cacti
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647009
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 ---
- Man page should not be installed as %doc. The archive extension should be
globbed as the compression may change in the future.
%{_mandir}/man1/spine.1.*
- %makeinstall is verboten, you should use %make_install instead
%install
%make_install
- The LICENSE file must be installed in %files with %license
%files
%license LICENSE
- The actual license seems to be LGPLv2+ not GPLv2+
- [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
--
AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: cacti-spine-1.1.38/configure.ac:83
AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: cacti-spine-1.1.38/configure.ac:13
AC_PROG_LIBTOOL should be patched to use LT_INIT.
AM_CONFIG_HEADER should be patched to use AC_CONFIG_HEADERS.
Send the patch upstream if possible.
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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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.
[!]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "FSF All Permissive License", "Unknown or generated", "GNU
Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "Expat License", "FSF
Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License", "BSD
4-clause "Original" or "Old" License", "FSF Unlimited License (with
Retention)". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/cacti-spine/review-cacti-
spine/licensecheck.txt
[!]: 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 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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
[Bug 1644719] Review Request: gsignond-plugin-mail - E-Mail plugin for gsignond
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1644719 --- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini --- I'm not in a hurry, so I didn't want to push for finishing the review. Either way, there was a successful compose a few hours ago, so that point is now moot anyway :) -- 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
[Bug 1646543] Review Request: dnf-plugin-ovl - DNF plugin to work around overlayfs issues
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1646543 --- Comment #3 from Till Hofmann --- (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #2) > The license file is missing from the sources and the package. > > Cf. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Thanks for pointing this out. Upstream does not ship a license, I've asked them to include it: https://github.com/FlorianLudwig/dnf-plugin-ovl/pull/2 -- 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
[Bug 1646543] Review Request: dnf-plugin-ovl - DNF plugin to work around overlayfs issues
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1646543 --- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa --- The license file is missing from the sources and the package. Cf. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text -- 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
[Bug 1645998] Review Request: perl-Data-ICal-DateTime - Convenience methods for using Data:: ICal with DateTime
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645998 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Data-ICal-DateTime -- 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
[Bug 1646344] Review Request: earlyoom - Early OOM Daemon for Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1646344 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/earlyoom -- 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
[Bug 1629371] Review Request: mock-install - A small utility to request package installation within a mock buildroot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1629371 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa --- Review notes: [x] Package builds and installs [x] Package complies with packaging guidelines [!] Package is missing changelog and has "bad" release value - Please fix on import PACKAGE APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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
[Bug 1509679] Review Request: rofi - A window switcher, application launcher and dmenu replacement
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679 --- Comment #10 from Till Hofmann --- Spec URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/rofi.spec SRPM URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/rofi-1.5.1-3.fc28.src.rpm I just realized I forgot the license file. Added it to all independently installable sub-packages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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
[Bug 1509679] Review Request: rofi - A window switcher, application launcher and dmenu replacement
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679 --- Comment #9 from Till Hofmann --- Spec URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/rofi.spec SRPM URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/rofi-1.5.1-2.fc28.src.rpm - Move themes into a separate noarch sub-package - Make doc sub-package noarch -- 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
[Bug 1509679] Review Request: rofi - A window switcher, application launcher and dmenu replacement
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679 --- Comment #8 from Till Hofmann --- (In reply to Jan Pokorný from comment #7) > Just some debatable spots based on fedora-review results: > > - can the bundled libraries be related to particular versions? Not really, as they do not have any releases. However, I could use release tags similar to git snapshot tags: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Snapshots Do you think that makes sense? > - does it make sense to put themes to a separate noarch subpackage? Good suggestion, working on it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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
[Bug 1647009] New: Review Request: cacti-spine - High performance poller for cacti
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647009 Bug ID: 1647009 Summary: Review Request: cacti-spine - High performance poller for cacti Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mstev...@imt-systems.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://mstevens.fedorapeople.org/cacti-spine/cacti-spine.spec SRPM URL: https://mstevens.fedorapeople.org/cacti-spine/cacti-spine-1.1.38-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: Spine is a supplemental poller for Cacti that makes use of pthreads to achieve excellent performance. Fedora Account System Username: mstevens -- 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
[Bug 1509679] Review Request: rofi - A window switcher, application launcher and dmenu replacement
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509679 --- Comment #7 from Jan Pokorný --- Just some debatable spots based on fedora-review results: - can the bundled libraries be related to particular versions? - does it make sense to put themes to a separate noarch subpackage? -- 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
[Bug 1433784] Review Request: nodejs-nodemon - Simple monitor script for use during development of a node.js app
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433784 Marek Skalický changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mskal...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mskal...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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
[Bug 1646965] New: Review Request: php-elvanto-litemoji - Conversion of unicode, HTML and shortcode emoji
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1646965 Bug ID: 1646965 Summary: Review Request: php-elvanto-litemoji - Conversion of unicode, HTML and shortcode emoji Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/elvanto/php-elvanto-litemoji.git/plain/php-elvanto-litemoji.spec?id=6cfe4b239b910dbbcfc3de0067c41d9b9eee955c SRPM URL: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/?C=M;O=D Description: A PHP library simplifying the conversion of unicode, HTML and shortcode emoji. Autoloader: /usr/share/php/LitEmoji/autoload.php Fedora Account System Username: remi -- 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
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 --- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt --- > Can you please be more clear on what I'm missing here? Is it the addition of > -O3 to the flags? I've corrected that bit now, but you'll have to point out > what else I'm missing, I'm afraid. Yes, -O3 and possibly more flags that override Fedora's defaults. The guidelines offer multiple choices how to handle such a case. Removing -O3 is the most plausible option. > I've now copied bits from wikipedia too. How is this? The primary issue remains. The base package "libb64" does not contain a library. It also doesn't contain the source code. It contains only the command-line executable with nothing in the %description commenting on it or its strengths compared with the tool from coreutils. Is the primary interest in the library and API or the executable? I understand that you need the lib as buildreq for other packages, but if shipping the tool in a separate non-devel package starting with a "lib" prefix in its name, the package description should mention that. Note that you could also build a "libb64-tools" subpackage instead, even if it's only a single executable. -- 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
[Bug 1646344] Review Request: earlyoom - Early OOM Daemon for Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1646344
Vasiliy Glazov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Vasiliy Glazov ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: earlyoom-debugsource :
/usr/src/debug/earlyoom-1.2-1.fc30.x86_64/kill.h earlyoom-debugsource :
/usr/src/debug/earlyoom-1.2-1.fc30.x86_64/meminfo.h earlyoom-debugsource
: /usr/src/debug/earlyoom-1.2-1.fc30.x86_64/msg.h
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: gcc
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 25 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/vascom/1646344-earlyoom/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /etc/default
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/default
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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 20480 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
[Bug 1646344] Review Request: earlyoom - Early OOM Daemon for Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1646344 Vasiliy Glazov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||vasc...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vasc...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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
[Bug 1636111] Review Request: glyr - Glyr is a music related metadata searchengine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1636111 --- Comment #24 from mati8...@gmail.com --- > Can this be fixed? > > /builddir/build/BUILD/glyr/spec/capi/check_api.c:193:F:Init:test_glyr_download:0: > Could not load www.google.de OH.. I can make a patch to ignore this check, but honestly, if it were for me, I would not have compiled the tests. We are already testing 2 of the 3 tests, and there is still another test of the providers that depends on the python binding. (What would be to enter into the dilemma of the egg and the chicken..?) See: https://github.com/sahib/glyr/tree/master/spec Seems that we want to be more papable than the Pope... but we are doing it in half.. :disapointed: Well... In summary, if you want to write a patch, or disable the tests again. ;) But taking into account that the library is for downloading information from the internet, doing the tests without internet seems that not make much sense.. p.s: Sorry about the analogies .. haha. -- 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
[Bug 1645848] Review Request: libb64 - A library for fast encoding/ decoding data into and from a base64-encoded format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645848 --- Comment #7 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- (In reply to Manas Mangaonkar (Pac23) from comment #6) > libb64.x86_64: - can you include a man page for the binary libb64-base64 Not really. Upstream doesn't provide one :( > also a zero length error in the libb64/TODO Removed. > > devel.x86_64 lacks documentation aswell. Again, upstream does not provide any, so there is none to include :( > > Package builds fine otherwise. 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
[Bug 1636757] Review Request: openssl-gost-engine - GOST crypto implementation for OpenSSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1636757 Dmitry Belyavskiy changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2018-11-06 05:26:53 --- Comment #14 from Dmitry Belyavskiy --- Done. -- 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
[Bug 1636757] Review Request: openssl-gost-engine - GOST crypto implementation for OpenSSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1636757 --- Comment #13 from Tomas Mraz --- Yes, see the contributor steps in: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process -- 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
[Bug 1592952] Review Request: digidoc4-client - Application for digitally signing and encrypting documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1592952 Anatoli Babenia changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anat...@rainforce.org --- Comment #13 from Anatoli Babenia --- Just to cast my vote from a user perspective - it would be great to preserve the same name for non-deprecated version of this identity software. -- 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
[Bug 1645998] Review Request: perl-Data-ICal-DateTime - Convenience methods for using Data:: ICal with DateTime
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645998 --- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Seyman --- Thank you for the review, Jikta. I've requested the repo. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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
[Bug 1645998] Review Request: perl-Data-ICal-DateTime - Convenience methods for using Data:: ICal with DateTime
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645998 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova --- Source file is ok Summary is ok License is ok Description is ok URL and Source0 are ok All tests passed BuildRequires are ok $ rpm -qp --requires perl-Data-ICal-DateTime-0.82-1.fc30.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl(Clone) 1 perl(Data::ICal) 1 perl(DateTime::Format::ICal) 1 perl(DateTime::Set) 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.28.0) 1 perl(strict) 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 -qp --provides perl-Data-ICal-DateTime-0.82-1.fc30.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl(Data::ICal::DateTime) = 0.82 1 perl-Data-ICal-DateTime = 0.82-1.fc30 Binary provides are Ok. $ rpmlint ./perl-Data-ICal-DateTime* 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. The package looks good. 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
