[Bug 1644194] Review Request: ursa-major - A utility for managing module tags in koji's tag inheritance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1644194 Qixiang Wan changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com ||) --- Comment #5 from Qixiang Wan --- Hi Robert, The build issues are fixed, could you help to give it another round of 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 1624823] Review Request: python-trimesh - Import, export, process, analyze and view triangular meshes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624823 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- python-trimesh-2.35.24-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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 1624823] Review Request: python-trimesh - Import, export, process, analyze and view triangular meshes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624823 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-11-18 20:52:10 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- python-trimesh-2.35.24-1.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 1651028] Review Request: perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite - SQLite backend for Minion job queue
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1651028 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- URL and Source addresses are Ok. Source archive (SHA-256: 0811d41b9c4c672c9ac63a0261b3f5b12e3c9440219c109b57fd743a19a1c309) is original. Ok. Summary verified from lib/Minion/Backend/SQLite.pm. Ok. Description verified from lib/Minion/Backend/SQLite.pm. Ok. License verified from lib/Minion/Backend/SQLite.pm and README. Ok. No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok. All tests pass. Ok. $ rpmlint perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite.spec review-perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite/results/perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite-4.002-1.fc30.noarch.rpm review-perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite/results/perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite-4.002-1.fc30.src.rpm 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpm -q -lv -p perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite-4.002-1.fc30.noarch.rpm drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 nov. 19 00:43 /usr/share/doc/perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 4430 oct. 3 19:58 /usr/share/doc/perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite/CONTRIBUTING.md -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3532 oct. 3 19:58 /usr/share/doc/perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite/Changes -rw-r--r--1 rootroot14118 oct. 3 19:58 /usr/share/doc/perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite/README drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 oct. 3 19:58 /usr/share/doc/perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite/examples -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3434 oct. 3 19:58 /usr/share/doc/perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite/examples/minion_bench.pl drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 nov. 19 00:43 /usr/share/licenses/perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 9037 oct. 3 19:58 /usr/share/licenses/perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite/LICENSE -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 5812 nov. 19 00:43 /usr/share/man/man3/Minion::Backend::SQLite.3pm.gz drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 nov. 19 00:43 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Minion drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 nov. 19 00:43 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Minion/Backend -rw-r--r--1 rootroot30316 nov. 19 00:43 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Minion/Backend/SQLite.pm File permissions and layout are Ok. rpm -q --requires -p perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite-4.002-1.fc30.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.28.0) 1 perl(Carp) 1 perl(List::Util) 1 perl(Mojo::Base) 1 perl(Mojo::SQLite) 1 perl(Mojo::Util) 1 perl(Sys::Hostname) 1 perl(Time::HiRes) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 Binary requires are Ok. rpm -q --provides -p perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite-4.002-1.fc30.noarch.rpm perl(Minion::Backend::SQLite) = 4.002 perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite = 4.002-1.fc30 Binary provides are Ok. Package builds in Mock. Ok The package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines. Resolution: Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1650969] Review Request: perl-Mojo-SQLite - Tiny Mojolicious wrapper for SQLite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650969 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1651028 ||(perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite ||) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1651028 [Bug 1651028] Review Request: perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite - SQLite backend for Minion job queue -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1651028] Review Request: perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite - SQLite backend for Minion job queue
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1651028 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1650969 Alias||perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650969 [Bug 1650969] Review Request: perl-Mojo-SQLite - Tiny Mojolicious wrapper for SQLite -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1651028] New: Review Request: perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite - SQLite backend for Minion job queue
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1651028 Bug ID: 1651028 Summary: Review Request: perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite - SQLite backend for Minion job queue 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-Minion-Backend-SQLite/perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite.spec SRPM URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite/perl-Minion-Backend-SQLite-4.002-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: Minion::Backend::SQLite is a backend for Minion based on Mojo::SQLite. All necessary tables will be created automatically with a set of migrations named minion. If no connection string or :temp: is provided, the database will be created in a temporary directory. 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 1650947] Review Request: python-pygiftiio - Python bindings for Gifti
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650947 --- Comment #7 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Thanks very much! SCM requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/8898 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1650937] Review Request: python-dipy - Diffusion MRI utilities in python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650937 --- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Updated spec/srpm (didn't bump release for the comment): Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-dipy/python-dipy.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-dipy/python-dipy-0.15.0-0.1.git756b519.fc29.src.rpm SCM request: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/8893 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1650937] Review Request: python-dipy - Diffusion MRI utilities in python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650937 --- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2) > - Why docs are disabled? > > %bcond_with docs > > The docs generation process tries to download 100MB+ image files etc., so I think it's best to just refer users to upstream documentation instead of downloading it all. I can provide partial documentation, but that may confuse users :( I've added a comment in the spec to clarify. > > Package approved otherwise. Lovely! 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 1592952] Review Request: digidoc4-client - Application for digitally signing and encrypting documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1592952 Germano Massullo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cserpen...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(cserpentis@gmail. ||com) --- Comment #14 from Germano Massullo --- Dmitri could you please reupload the spec file? The URLs return 404 error. Thank you -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1540726] Review request: bettercap - A complete, modular, portable and easily extensible MITM framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540726 Germano Massullo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2018-11-18 16:45:20 --- Comment #14 from Germano Massullo --- It is not possible to package Bettercap due the amount of libraries that need to be packaged -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1548142] Review request: firefox-pkcs11-loader - Helper script for Firefox that sets up the browser for authentication with Estonian ID-card
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1548142 Germano Massullo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-11-18 16:44:47 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1650947] Review Request: python-pygiftiio - Python bindings for Gifti
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650947 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin --- LGTM, 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 1150105] Review Request: python-pynn - Simulator-independent specification of neuronal network models
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150105 --- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- It requires neuron, more work on NEST (it needs to be built with libneurosim which requires upstream to do a bit of work), and brian (which is packaged). Since neuron and NEST need work, I don't want to make pynn available to users via Fedora yet. So, it isn't ready for review yet. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1650947] Review Request: python-pygiftiio - Python bindings for Gifti
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650947 --- Comment #5 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3) > License:MIT > > %license LICENSE.GPL > > Is it GPL or MIT? Gah! Sorry about that---that's from the template. It's GPL. Corrected: Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-pygiftiio/python-pygiftiio.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-pygiftiio/python-pygiftiio-1.0.4-1.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 1648444] Review Request: vdr-graphlcd - VDR plugin: Output to graphic LCD
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1648444
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 #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- You're missing some BR:
BUILDSTDERR: Package freetype2 was not found in the pkg-config search path.
BUILDSTDERR: Perhaps you should add the directory containing `freetype2.pc'
BUILDSTDERR: to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable
BUILDSTDERR: Package 'freetype2', required by 'virtual:world', not found
BUILDSTDERR: /bin/sh: g++: command not found
Add:
BuildRequires: gcc-c++
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(freetype2)
- License is GPLv2+ not GPL+
- Convert this file to utf-8:
vdr-graphlcd.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/vdr-graphlcd/HISTORY
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.
[!]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GNU General Public License", "GPL (v2 or later) (with
incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 1074 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/vdr-graphlcd/review-vdr-
graphlcd/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]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 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]: %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]:
[Bug 1648426] Review Request: graphlcd-base - GraphLCD drivers and tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1648426 --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Also you must install the COPYING file as %license. License is GPLv2+, not GPL+. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1648426] Review Request: graphlcd-base - GraphLCD drivers and tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1648426
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 #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- To avoid unintentional soname bump, please don't glob the major soname
version. Be more specific instead:
%{_libdir}/libglcddrivers.so.2*
%{_libdir}/libglcdgraphics.so.2*
%{_libdir}/libglcdskin.so.2*
- [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Note: %define requiring justification: %define shortname graphlcd
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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GNU General Public License", "GPL (v2 or later) (with
incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License",
"Unknown or generated". 56 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/graphlcd-base/review-
graphlcd-base/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[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 163840 bytes in 31 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 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
[Bug 1150105] Review Request: python-pynn - Simulator-independent specification of neuronal network models
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150105 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Do you still need this reviewed? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1619458] Review Request: python-pyphi - A library for computing integrated information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1619458 --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin --- (In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #5) > pyemd is ready for review. I double checked, and it is the last requirement > for pyphi. Could you update the SPEC wrt my comments then? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1649797] Review Request: imwheel - Mouse Event to Key Event Mapper Daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649797
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Add your own %changelog entry.
- seems you pasted the wrong description
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B
- Convert this file to utf8:
mwheel.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/imwheel/ChangeLog
- [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
--
AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: imwheel-1.0.0pre12/configure.in:20
Patch AM_CONFIG_HEADER with AC_CONFIG_HEADERS in configure.in in %prep
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "NTP
License", "Unknown or generated". 53 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/imwheel
/review-imwheel/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 71680 bytes in 6 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]: %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 al
[Bug 1650969] Review Request: perl-Mojo-SQLite - Tiny Mojolicious wrapper for SQLite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650969 --- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Seyman --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > > Resolution: Package approved. Thank you R-A. Repository requested. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1650428] Review Request: perl-URI-db - Perl support for database URIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650428 --- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Seyman --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > > → Add: > > BuildRequires: perl(URI::Nested) Done locally. This will be in the imported package. > Resolution: Package approved. Please fix the missing BR before import. Repository requested. Thank you for the review, Robert-André. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1650370] Review Request: golang-github-rainycape-memcache - Memcache client library for the Go programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650370 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 --- - Your %changelog entry should contain the entire Release info * Wed Nov 14 2018 Carl George - 0-0.1.20181116git1031fa0 (date should be the date you upload your archive to dist-git) - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 1650621] Review Request: fpart - a tool that helps you sort file trees and pack them into bags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650621
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
-
autoreconf --install
%configure
goes in %build
- add your own changelog entry
- Don't repeat the name in the summary and don't add a dot at the end:
fpart.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Fpart is a tool that sorts files and
packs them into bags.
fpart.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Fpart
- The release info is missing from the latest changelog entry:
fpart.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.0 ['1.1.0-1.fc30',
'1.1.0-1']
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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "*No copyright* BSD
(unspecified)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or
"Revised" License". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/fpart/review-
fpart/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 3 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 subpac
[Bug 1650633] Review Request: pam_2fa - Second factor authentication for PAM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650633
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: 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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 16 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/pam_2fa/review-pam_2fa/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 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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
pam_ssh_user_auth , pam_2fa-debuginfo , pam_2fa-debugsource
[?]: Package
[Bug 1650676] Review Request: golang-github-cpu-goacmedns - A Go library to handle acme-dns client communication and persistent account storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650676 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 --- - Cut down the summary and split the description in order to stay under 80 characters per line: golang-github-cpu-goacmedns.x86_64: E: summary-too-long C A Go library to handle acme-dns client communication and persistent account storage golang-github-cpu-goacmedns-devel.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C A Go library to handle acme-dns client communication and persistent account storage. - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. Fix the aforementioned issues before import. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1650937] Review Request: python-dipy - Diffusion MRI utilities in python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650937 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Why docs are disabled? %bcond_with docs Package approved otherwise. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1649874] Review Request: hpx - a general purpose C++ runtime system for parallel and distributed applications of any scale
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649874 Luis Segundo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Luis Segundo --- Spec looks good! License: Ok rpmlint hpx-1.2.0-3.fc29.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Package approved! regards -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1650969] Review Request: perl-Mojo-SQLite - Tiny Mojolicious wrapper for SQLite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650969 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- URL and Source addresses are Ok. Source archive (SHA-256: 04b790d65b2a2d9fd1eaad52a72055c46f61aa3cad09bbe959ce2db167ad3ebe) is original. Ok. Summary verified from lib/Mojo/SQLite.pm. Ok. Description verified from lib/Mojo/SQLite.pm. Ok. License verified from lib/Mojo/SQLite.pm and README. Ok. No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok. All tests pass. Ok. $ rpmlint perl-Mojo-SQLite.spec review-perl-Mojo-SQLite/results/perl-Mojo-SQLite-3.001-1.fc30.noarch.rpm review-perl-Mojo-SQLite/results/perl-Mojo-SQLite-3.001-1.fc30.src.rpm 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpm -q -lv -p perl-Mojo-SQLite-3.001-1.fc30.noarch.rpm drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 nov. 18 17:18 /usr/share/doc/perl-Mojo-SQLite -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 4430 juil. 21 02:25 /usr/share/doc/perl-Mojo-SQLite/CONTRIBUTING.md -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 5743 juil. 21 02:25 /usr/share/doc/perl-Mojo-SQLite/Changes -rw-r--r--1 rootroot14738 juil. 21 02:25 /usr/share/doc/perl-Mojo-SQLite/README drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 nov. 18 17:18 /usr/share/licenses/perl-Mojo-SQLite -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 9037 juil. 21 02:25 /usr/share/licenses/perl-Mojo-SQLite/LICENSE -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 7077 nov. 18 17:18 /usr/share/man/man3/Mojo::SQLite.3pm.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 4429 nov. 18 17:18 /usr/share/man/man3/Mojo::SQLite::Database.3pm.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3321 nov. 18 17:18 /usr/share/man/man3/Mojo::SQLite::Migrations.3pm.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2072 nov. 18 17:18 /usr/share/man/man3/Mojo::SQLite::PubSub.3pm.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3270 nov. 18 17:18 /usr/share/man/man3/Mojo::SQLite::Results.3pm.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2341 nov. 18 17:18 /usr/share/man/man3/Mojo::SQLite::Transaction.3pm.gz drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 nov. 18 17:18 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mojo drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 nov. 18 17:18 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mojo/SQLite -rw-r--r--1 rootroot17554 nov. 18 17:18 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mojo/SQLite.pm -rw-r--r--1 rootroot11146 nov. 18 17:18 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mojo/SQLite/Database.pm -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 7025 nov. 18 17:18 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mojo/SQLite/Migrations.pm -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 816 nov. 18 17:18 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mojo/SQLite/PubSub.pm -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 5451 nov. 18 17:18 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mojo/SQLite/Results.pm -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2025 nov. 18 17:18 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Mojo/SQLite/Transaction.pm File permissions and layout are Ok. $ rpm -q --requires -p perl-Mojo-SQLite-3.001-1.fc30.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.28.0) 1 perl(Carp) 1 perl(constant) 1 perl(DBD::SQLite) 1 perl(DBI) 1 perl(File::Spec::Functions) 1 perl(File::Temp) 1 perl(Mojo::Base) 1 perl(Mojo::Collection) 1 perl(Mojo::File) 1 perl(Mojo::IOLoop) 1 perl(Mojo::JSON) 1 perl(Mojo::Loader) 1 perl(Mojo::SQLite::Database) 1 perl(Mojo::SQLite::Migrations) 1 perl(Mojo::SQLite::Results) 1 perl(Mojo::SQLite::Transaction) 1 perl(Mojo::Util) 1 perl(Scalar::Util) 1 perl(SQL::Abstract) 1 perl(URI) 1 perl(URI::db) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 Binary requires are Ok. $ rpm -q --provides -p perl-Mojo-SQLite-3.001-1.fc30.noarch.rpm perl(Mojo::SQLite) = 3.001 perl(Mojo::SQLite::Database) = 3.001 perl(Mojo::SQLite::Migrations) = 3.001 perl(Mojo::SQLite::PubSub) = 3.001 perl(Mojo::SQLite::Results) = 3.001 perl(Mojo::SQLite::Transaction) = 3.001 perl-Mojo-SQLite = 3.001-1.fc30 Binary provides are Ok. Package builds in Mock. Ok The package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines. Resolution: Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _
[Bug 1650428] Review Request: perl-URI-db - Perl support for database URIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650428 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- URL and Source addresses are Ok. Source archive (SHA-256: c4999deaf451652216032c8e327ff6e6d655539eac379095bb69b0c369efa658) is original. Ok. Summary verified from lib/URI/db.pm. Ok. Description verified from lib/URI/db.pm. Ok. License verified from lib/URI/db.pm and README. Ok. No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok. Tests fail: Exécution_de(%check) : /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.nEWHQq + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd URI-db-0.19 + ./Build test BUILDSTDERR: Base class package "URI::Nested" is empty. BUILDSTDERR: (Perhaps you need to 'use' the module which defines that package first, BUILDSTDERR: or make that module available in @INC (@INC contains: /builddir/build/BUILD/URI-db-0.19/blib/lib /builddir/build/BUILD/URI-db-0.19/blib/arch /usr/local/lib64/perl5 /usr/local/share/perl5 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/lib64/perl5 /usr/share/perl5 .). BUILDSTDERR: at /builddir/build/BUILD/URI-db-0.19/blib/lib/URI/db.pm line 14. BUILDSTDERR: BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at /builddir/build/BUILD/URI-db-0.19/blib/lib/URI/db.pm line 14. BUILDSTDERR: Compilation failed in require at (eval 10) line 1. t/db.t ... Dubious, test returned 2 (wstat 512, 0x200) No subtests run BUILDSTDERR: Base class package "URI::Nested" is empty. BUILDSTDERR: (Perhaps you need to 'use' the module which defines that package first, BUILDSTDERR: or make that module available in @INC (@INC contains: /builddir/build/BUILD/URI-db-0.19/blib/lib /builddir/build/BUILD/URI-db-0.19/blib/arch /usr/local/lib64/perl5 /usr/local/share/perl5 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/lib64/perl5 /usr/share/perl5 .). BUILDSTDERR: at /builddir/build/BUILD/URI-db-0.19/blib/lib/URI/db.pm line 14. BUILDSTDERR: BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at /builddir/build/BUILD/URI-db-0.19/blib/lib/URI/db.pm line 14. BUILDSTDERR: Compilation failed in require at (eval 10) line 1. t/dbi.t .. Dubious, test returned 2 (wstat 512, 0x200) No subtests run BUILDSTDERR: Base class package "URI::Nested" is empty. BUILDSTDERR: (Perhaps you need to 'use' the module which defines that package first, BUILDSTDERR: or make that module available in @INC (@INC contains: /builddir/build/BUILD/URI-db-0.19/blib/lib /builddir/build/BUILD/URI-db-0.19/blib/arch /usr/local/lib64/perl5 /usr/local/share/perl5 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/lib64/perl5 /usr/share/perl5 .). BUILDSTDERR: at /builddir/build/BUILD/URI-db-0.19/blib/lib/URI/db.pm line 14. BUILDSTDERR: BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at /builddir/build/BUILD/URI-db-0.19/blib/lib/URI/db.pm line 14. BUILDSTDERR: Compilation failed in require at (eval 10) line 1. t/engines.t .. Dubious, test returned 2 (wstat 512, 0x200) No subtests run Test Summary Report --- t/db.t (Wstat: 512 Tests: 0 Failed: 0) Non-zero exit status: 2 Parse errors: No plan found in TAP output t/dbi.t(Wstat: 512 Tests: 0 Failed: 0) Non-zero exit status: 2 Parse errors: No plan found in TAP output t/engines.t (Wstat: 512 Tests: 0 Failed: 0) Non-zero exit status: 2 Parse errors: No plan found in TAP output Files=3, Tests=0, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.01 sys + 0.20 cusr 0.03 csys = 0.26 CPU) Result: FAIL BUILDSTDERR: Failed 3/3 test programs. 0/0 subtests failed. → Add: BuildRequires: perl(URI::Nested) $ rpmlint perl-URI-db.spec review-perl-URI-db/results/perl-URI-db-0.19-1.fc30.noarch.rpm review-perl-URI-db/results/perl-URI-db-0.19-1.fc30.src.rpm 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpm -q -lv -p perl-URI-db-0.19-1.fc30.noarch.rpm drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 nov. 18 16:58 /usr/share/doc/perl-URI-db -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2828 juil. 19 17:14 /usr/share/doc/perl-URI-db/Changes -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1213 juil. 19 17:14 /usr/share/doc/perl-URI-db/README -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 7468 juil. 19 17:14 /usr/share/doc/perl-URI-db/README.md -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 5419 nov. 18 16:58 /usr/share/man/man3/URI::db.3pm.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1944 nov. 18 16:58 /usr/share/man/man3/URI::ldapdb.3pm.gz -rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2215 nov. 18 16:58 /usr/share/man/man3/URI::mssql.3pm.gz drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 nov. 18 16:58 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/URI -rw-r--r--
[Bug 1650987] Review Request: libgenht - A simple generic hash table implementation in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650987 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||decatho...@gmail.com Assignee|alain.vigne...@gmail.com|decatho...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini --- I can review your 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 1650947] Review Request: python-pygiftiio - Python bindings for Gifti
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650947
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-pygiftiio
/review-python-pygiftiio/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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: 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 o
[Bug 1650937] Review Request: python-dipy - Diffusion MRI utilities in python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650937
Manas Mangaonkar (Pac23) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manasmangaon...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Manas Mangaonkar (Pac23) ---
Not a Official Review!
--
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: python-dipy-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/python-
dipy-0.15.0-0.1.git756b519.fc30.x86_64/src/dpy_math.h
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Expat License",
"Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 636 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/root/review/neurofed/python-dipy/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 /usr/share/doc/dipy
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/dipy
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[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 20480 bytes in 3 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Gen
[Bug 1650947] Review Request: python-pygiftiio - Python bindings for Gifti
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650947 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- License:MIT %license LICENSE.GPL Is it GPL or MIT? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1644473] Review Request: llvm-test-suite - C/C++ Compiler Test Suite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1644473 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1650987] Review Request: libgenht - A simple generic hash table implementation in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650987 Alain V. changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://repo.hu/projects/gen ||ht CC||alain.vigne...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|alain.vigne...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1650987] Review Request: libgenht - A simple generic hash table implementation in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650987 Alain V. changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: libgenht - |Review Request: libgenht - |A simple generic hash table |A simple generic hash table |implementation in C.|implementation in C -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1650987] New: Review Request: libgenht - A simple generic hash table implementation in C.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650987 Bug ID: 1650987 Summary: Review Request: libgenht - A simple generic hash table implementation in C. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: alain.vigne...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/avigne/libgenht Description: Generic hash table C library. This lib. is a foundation for future set of packages, delivering scripting facility in pcb-rnd. http://repo.hu/projects/pcb-rnd/ http://repo.hu/cgi-bin/pool.cgi?cmd=show&node=script_pkg The Mageia COPR build failed due to gcc-c++ ??? I explicitly BuildRequire gcc only ! Fedora Account System Username: avigne -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1565848] Review Request: bear - Tool that generates a compilation database for clang tooling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1565848
--- Comment #24 from Till Hofmann ---
Some remarks:
- The license should be GPLv3+, not GPLv3.
- As Robert-André pointed out, you don't need to Require python.
- The shebang replacement should keep the timestamp. Your version is also not
safe, as it would substitute "/usr/bin/env python" anywhere in the file, and it
would replace "/usr/bin/env python3" by "/usr/bin/python33". I usually use the
following snippet in %install instead:
for f in %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/* ; do
sed -i.orig "s:^#\!/usr/bin/env\s\+python\s\?$:#!%{__python3}:" $f
touch -r $f.orig $f
rm $f.orig
done
Note that if the shebang is "/usr/bin/env python3", then that is fine, because
the mangler will automatically change it to "/usr/bin/python3", see [1].
- In the future, please follow the pattern with URLs to the SPEC and SRPM on
the first two lines, as in the original post. The URLs should point to a raw
SPEC and a directly downloadable SRPM. This allows a reviewer to use
fedora-review.
- The file section can be simplified, e.g., instead of
%dir %{_libdir}/bear/
%{_libdir}/bear/libear.so
you can simply write
%{_libdir}/bear
Similarly for the docs.
- You list some doc files twice. If you list a file such as "%doc README.md",
then you don't need to list it again. The build system already installs those
files, so either you list them with %doc %{_docdir}/bear, or you remove them in
%install and install them with %doc README.md etc. You also have two copies of
COPYING. No need to have it in the doc dir, although that's not a big issue
either.
- Why do you have conditionals on %{?fedora}?
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Shebang_lines
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1565848] Review Request: bear - Tool that generates a compilation database for clang tooling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1565848 Till Hofmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #23 from Till Hofmann --- I just sponsored Dan. 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 1266594] Review Request: playerctl - Command-line MPRIS-compatible Media Player Controller
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266594 --- Comment #3 from Dridi Boukelmoune --- I will start the non-responsive maintainer policy to then start my own review request. I keep forgetting that playerctl is not in Fedora because I'm dogfooding on the packaging I linked in my previous comment. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1650943] Review Request: biosig4c++ - A software library for processing of biomedical signals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650943
--- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
(In reply to Manas Mangaonkar (Pac23) from comment #1)
> Not a Official Review
> ---
Thanks for the review, Manas.
>
>
> Issues:
> ===
> - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> Note: biosig4c++-debugsource :
These are in the debug package, not in the devel package.
> Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++
> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
It is required. It is a C++ library and the mock build fails if g++ is not
available.
/bin/sh: g++: command not found
from https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3700/30963700/build.log
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30963700
> - ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
> Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in biosig4c++
> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
It is:
%ldconfig_scriptlets
but, these are no longer required on F28+:
"On Fedora 28 and newer, no scriptlets are required when shared libraries are
installed. However, the following scriptlets MAY be used, as they will simply
evaluate to nothing on newer Fedora releases.
On Fedora 27 and older, ldconfig MUST be called properly in order to regenerate
the dynamic linker's cache. If the package or subpackage has no existing %post
or %postun scriptlets, simply include the %ldconfig_scriptlets macro on its own
line before the %files list."
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets#Shared_Libraries
I'm leaving it in, in case I build for F27.
>
> Installs and builds fine,although i did get no upstream for source thing
> while building it in mock
This is in the spec. If it isn't clear enough, please let me know and I can
improve it.
# Fetch the snapshot---this contains code for other biosig tools also which we
don't need
# git clone https://git.code.sf.net/p/biosig/code biosig-all
# cd biosig-all
# Remove symlink and replace with actual files
# rm biosig4c++/extern -f
# cp -r biosig4matlab/doc biosig4c++/extern
# tar -cvzf biosig4c++-1.9.3-94296e0ee92c39636235d390c313ad1dfe644a88.tar.gz
biosig4c++/
Source0:%{name}-%{version}-%{commit}.tar.gz
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 1650947] Review Request: python-pygiftiio - Python bindings for Gifti
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650947 --- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- The error isn't too clear somehow. I did check koji again and I *think* I've corrected the issue. When you use mock, please specify what target you've used. Since packages may do different things for different targets (releases) as this one does, and versions of packages differ between our releases too, this helps us indentify what the issue may be. This error for example, would not happen if you built for F29, so I suspect you build for rawhide. Here are successful scratch builds for rawhide and F29 (koji also uses mock): rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30963539 f29: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30963549 Updated spec/srpm: Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-pygiftiio/python-pygiftiio.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-pygiftiio/python-pygiftiio-1.0.4-1.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 1650969] Review Request: perl-Mojo-SQLite - Tiny Mojolicious wrapper for SQLite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650969 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1650428 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650428 [Bug 1650428] Review Request: perl-URI-db - Perl support for database URIs -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1650428] Review Request: perl-URI-db - Perl support for database URIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650428 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1650969 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650969 [Bug 1650969] Review Request: perl-Mojo-SQLite - Tiny Mojolicious wrapper for SQLite -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1650969] New: Review Request: perl-Mojo-SQLite - Tiny Mojolicious wrapper for SQLite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650969 Bug ID: 1650969 Summary: Review Request: perl-Mojo-SQLite - Tiny Mojolicious wrapper for SQLite 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-Mojo-SQLite/perl-Mojo-SQLite.spec SRPM URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-Mojo-SQLite/perl-Mojo-SQLite-3.001-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: Mojo::SQLite is a tiny wrapper around DBD::SQLite that makes SQLite a lot of fun to use with the Mojolicious real-time web framework. Use all SQL features SQLite has to offer, generate CRUD queries from data structures, and manage your database schema with migrations. 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 1650943] Review Request: biosig4c++ - A software library for processing of biomedical signals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650943 Manas Mangaonkar (Pac23) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manasmangaon...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Manas Mangaonkar (Pac23) --- Not a Official Review --- Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: === - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/XMLParser/tinystr.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/XMLParser/tinyxml.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/biosig-dev.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/biosig-network.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/biosig.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/gdftime.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/igor/IgorBin.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/physicalunits.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t210/abfheadr.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t210/axon_structs.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t210/codes.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t210/structures.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/ANY.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/AbsoluteRange.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/AbsoluteTime.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/Address.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/AlertCode.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/AlertCondition.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/AlertControls.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/AlertFlags.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/AlertSection.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/AlertType.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/ApplicationArea.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/ArchiveProtection.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/Authorization.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/BITS-16.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/BITS-32.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/BITS-8.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/BIT_STRING.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/BodySiteCode.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/ChannelDescriptionSection.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/ChannelStatus.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/ChoiceOfEnumObsValue.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/ChoiceOfEnumTimeStamp.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/ChoiceOfNuObsValue.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/Comments.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/ContentOrReference.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/CurLimAlStat.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/DescriptiveDataSection.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/DeviceCode.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc30.x86_64/t240/DispResolution.h biosig4c++-debugsource : /usr/src/debu
