[Bug 1668387] Review Request: poetry - Python dependency management and packaging made easy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1668387 --- Comment #7 from Neal Gompa --- (In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #6) > Neal - any progress here? I'm waiting to resolve bug 1666293. Once that's done, I can process the rest of 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 1689486] Review Request: python-numcodecs - Buffer compression and transformation for data storage and communication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689486 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- python-numcodecs-0.6.3-3.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-2019-92e5900abf -- 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 1691609] Review Request: python-yapf - A formatter for Python code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691609 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- python-yapf-0.26.0-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-5fcd2b143c -- 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 1692999] Review Request: python-aioresponses - mock aiohttp client sessions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1692999 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- python-aioresponses-0.6.0-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-17e53fa70e -- 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 1689486] Review Request: python-numcodecs - Buffer compression and transformation for data storage and communication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689486 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-numcodecs-0.6.3-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-d03cf47674 -- 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 1691188] Review Request: python-libpysal - Python Spatial Analysis Library core components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691188 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- python-libpysal-4.0.1-2.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 1691172] Review Request: R-forcats - Tools for Working with Categorical Variables (Factors)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691172 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- R-forcats-0.4.0-1.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 1684719] Review Request: netdata - Real-time performance monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684719 --- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System --- netdata-1.13.0-2.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 1691609] Review Request: python-yapf - A formatter for Python code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691609 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- python-yapf-0.26.0-2.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-2019-41c1edd422 -- 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 1692999] Review Request: python-aioresponses - mock aiohttp client sessions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1692999 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- python-aioresponses-0.6.0-1.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-2019-43a3be691f -- 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 1689486] Review Request: python-numcodecs - Buffer compression and transformation for data storage and communication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689486 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-numcodecs-0.6.3-3.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-2019-c8e5057d70 -- 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 1668387] Review Request: poetry - Python dependency management and packaging made easy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1668387 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||or...@nwra.com --- Comment #6 from Orion Poplawski --- Neal - any progress here? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1691172] Review Request: R-forcats - Tools for Working with Categorical Variables (Factors)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691172 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- R-forcats-0.4.0-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1691188] Review Request: python-libpysal - Python Spatial Analysis Library core components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691188 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- python-libpysal-4.0.1-2.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 1684719] Review Request: netdata - Real-time performance monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684719 --- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System --- netdata-1.13.0-2.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 1694894] Review Request: aeskeyfind - Locate 128-bit and 256-bit AES keys in a captured memory image
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694894
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Group: is not used in Fedora
- also use install -pm 0644 for the man page
- Please document what the patch is for:
Patch1: %{name}-%{version}-patch-001
- export CFLAGS="%{optflags}"
Use %set_build_flags instead
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", "Unknown or generated",
"*No copyright* GPL (v2)". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/aeskeyfind/review-
aeskeyfind/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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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
aeskeyfind
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream
[Bug 1694894] Review Request: aeskeyfind - Locate 128-bit and 256-bit AES keys in a captured memory image
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694894 --- Comment #1 from Michal Ambroz --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33879121 -- 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 1694894] New: Review Request: aeskeyfind - Locate 128-bit and 256-bit AES keys in a captured memory image
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694894 Bug ID: 1694894 Summary: Review Request: aeskeyfind - Locate 128-bit and 256-bit AES keys in a captured memory image Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: re...@seznam.cz QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org//aeskeyfind.spec SRPM URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org//aeskeyfind-1.0-5.fc29.src.rpm Description: This program illustrates automatic techniques for locating 128-bit and 256-bit AES keys in a captured memory image. The program uses various algorithms and also performs a simple entropy test to filter out blocks that are not keys. It counts the number of repeated bytes and skips blocks that have too many repeats. This method works even if several bits of the key schedule have been corrupted due to memory decay. This package is useful to several activities, as forensics investigations. -- 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 1694498] Review Request: python-typing-extensions - Python Typing Extensions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694498 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 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 1693914] Review Request: python-pplpy - Python PPL wrapper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1693914 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- python-pplpy-0.8.4-1.fc30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-127ffab520 -- 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 1692593] Review Request: visidata - Curses interface for exploring and arranging tabular data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1692593 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2019-04-02 00:01:51 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- visidata-1.5.2-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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 1691521] Review Request: python-flake8-polyfill - Compatibility helpers for flake8 plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691521 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2019-04-02 00:01:40 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- python-flake8-docstrings-1.2.0-2.fc30, python-flake8-polyfill-1.0.2-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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 1692582] Review Request: python-flake8-docstrings - A plugin to flake8 to include checks provided by pep257
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1692582 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2019-04-02 00:01:42 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- python-flake8-docstrings-1.2.0-2.fc30, python-flake8-polyfill-1.0.2-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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 1692582] Review Request: python-flake8-docstrings - A plugin to flake8 to include checks provided by pep257
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1692582 Bug 1692582 depends on bug 1691521, which changed state. Bug 1691521 Summary: Review Request: python-flake8-polyfill - Compatibility helpers for flake8 plugins https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691521 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- 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 1684719] Review Request: netdata - Real-time performance monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684719 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System --- netdata-1.13.0-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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 1691022] Review Request: ovn - Virtual networking solution from OpenvSwitch community
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691022
--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Group is not used in Fedora
- BuildRequires: systemd-units → BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros or
BuildRequires: systemd for older Fedora
- Redundant: libcap-ng is a dependency of libcap-ng-devel
%if %{with libcapng}
BuildRequires: libcap-ng-devel
%endif
- make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT → %make_install
--
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 1691022] Review Request: ovn - Virtual networking solution from OpenvSwitch community
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691022
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- The obsoleted version should be the version the obsoleted package would have
been if it was bumped
Obsoletes: openvswitch-ovn-common < 2.11.0-3
and so on for all the Obsoletes.
- Use %{?systemd_requires}:
Requires(post): systemd-units
Requires(preun): systemd-units
Requires(postun): systemd-units
- What's the purpose of this:
%if 0%{?commit0:1}
%setup -n ovs-%{commit0} -q -D -T
%else
%setup -n openvswitch-%{version} -q -D -T
%endif
you already ran %autosetup. That will only overwrite patches applied in
%autosetup, which is probably not what you want.
- What platform are you targeting that don't have systemd macros? They are
even on EPEL7.
Remove all the %if 0%{?systemd_*:1} conditionals.
- Not useful:
# Use Python3
%global _py python3
%global _py2 python2
You used %_py one time in the spec.
- Have you discussed the obsoleting part with the current openvswitch
maintainers? You need to coordinate together for this.
I'll continue the review later.
--
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 1694805] Review Request: python-zeep - A fast and modern Python SOAP client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694805
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 #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- License is MIT and BSD:
https://github.com/mvantellingen/python-zeep/blob/master/LICENSE
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", "Expat License BSD 3-clause "New" or
"Revised" License", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)". 156 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-zeep/review-python-
zeep/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 20480 bytes in 9 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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
[Bug 1694246] Review Request: fondo - Wallpaper App
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694246
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 #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- AUTHORS.md should go in %doc, not %license
- Be a bit more descriptive in the summary
- Use the package instead:
BuildRequires: libappstream-glib
BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils
- Just use:
%{_datadir}/Fondo
instead of %{_datadir}/Fondo/images/%{filename}.svg
Otherwise you need to own these directories with %dir.
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", "GNU Affero General Public License
(v3)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "AGPL (v3 or later)". 58 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/fondo/review-fondo/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/Fondo, /usr/share/Fondo/images
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: 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 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= 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 fondo
[?]: Package
[Bug 1694498] Review Request: python-typing-extensions - Python Typing Extensions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694498 --- Comment #6 from Jonny Heggheim --- (In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #5) > (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3) > > Looks like we fixed it at the same time, I used the patch from Debian: > https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/python-typing-extensions/tree/master/ > debian/patches. Please let me know what you prefer. I updated again with your patches and %check without cd, same URLs. -- 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 1694498] Review Request: python-typing-extensions - Python Typing Extensions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694498 --- Comment #5 from Jonny Heggheim --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3) Looks like we fixed it at the same time, I used the patch from Debian: https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/python-typing-extensions/tree/master/debian/patches. Please let me know what you prefer. -- 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 1694498] Review Request: python-typing-extensions - Python Typing Extensions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694498 --- Comment #4 from Jonny Heggheim --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2) > BUILDSTDERR: > -- > BUILDSTDERR: Ran 0 tests in 0.000s > BUILDSTDERR: OK > > Tests aren't properly running. Please fix this. Good catch, I have uploaded fixes, same URLs. Spec URL: http://jonny.fedorapeople.org//python-typing-extensions.spec SRPM URL: http://jonny.fedorapeople.org//python-typing-extensions-3.7.2-1.fc29.src.rpm New koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33876657 -- 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 1694735] Review Request: js8call - Fork of WSJT-X which allows QSOs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694735
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Could you write a more descriptive summary/description, for those who have
no idea what WSJT-X is, what does this program do?
- Use %set_build_flags instead
export CFLAGS="%{optflags}"
export LDFLAGS="%{?__global_ldflags}"
- Consider writing an Appdata file for your app:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/
- Document why these patches are needed: a comment, a link to upstream bug
report or merge request:
Patch0: js8call-sys_boost.patch
Patch1: js8call-hamlib.patch
- Or you could just define a global commit with the hash:
# Release 1.0.0
%global commit 9423640e52a1
[…]
%autosetup -p1 -n widefido-%{name}-%{commit}
Anyhow, the archive downloaded in Source0 must match the one ir the SRPM. If
you modify it, don't pass the full URL in Source0 but only the filename.
- Remove INSTALL file from docs:
js8call.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/JS8Call/INSTALL
- Please see this issue with upstream:
js8call.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/js8
executable-stack:
The binary declares the stack as executable. Executable stack is usually an
error as it is only needed if the code contains GCC trampolines or similar
constructs which uses code on the stack. One common source for needlessly
executable stack cases are object files built from assembler files which don't
define a proper .note.GNU-stack section.
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: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3 or later)", "BSD 3-clause
"New" or "Revised" License", "GNU Lesser General Public License
(v2.1)", "GNU General Public License", "GPL (v2 or later)", "BSL
(v1.0)". 723 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/js8call/review-
js8call/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.
[-]: 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).
[-]: 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 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
[Bug 1694498] Review Request: python-typing-extensions - Python Typing Extensions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694498
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
For the tests, you need:
Patch0:
https://github.com/python/typing/commit/1f49677868a60ed697b0eafb2fb56471233b4ea5.patch#/0001-Run-the-tests-using-the-current-Python-executable.patch
[…]
%package -n python3-typing-extensions
Summary:%{summary}
BuildRequires: python3-devel
BuildRequires: python3-test
[…]
%prep
%autosetup -n %{srcname}-%{version} -p2
[…]
%check
%{__python3} src_py3/test_typing_extensions.py
--
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 1694295] Review Request: gwe - System utility designed to provide information of NVIDIA card
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694295 --- Comment #3 from Artem --- You right, this BR packages not needed. Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gwe.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gwe-0.12.3-7.fc30.src.rpm So now waiting for PR merge... ⏳ -- 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 1694498] Review Request: python-typing-extensions - Python Typing Extensions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694498
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 #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
BUILDSTDERR:
--
BUILDSTDERR: Ran 0 tests in 0.000s
BUILDSTDERR: OK
Tests aren't properly running. Please fix this.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "Unknown or
generated", "*No copyright* Python Software Foundation License". 10
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-typing-extensions/review-python-
typing-extensions/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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
[Bug 1694231] Review Request: libunarr - A decompression library for rar, tar and zip archives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694231 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Great, 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 1692584] Review Request: mythes-de - German thesaurus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1692584 --- Comment #3 from Robert Scheck --- Branching for f30 has been requested via https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10822 -- 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 1694292] Review Request: yacreader - A cross platform comic reader and library manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694292 --- Comment #3 from Artem --- Done. Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/yacreader.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/yacreader-9.5.0-3.fc30.src.rpm --- BTW how did you find so easy which license this components and files are using? -- 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 1694231] Review Request: libunarr - A decompression library for rar, tar and zip archives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694231 --- Comment #5 from Artem --- Done. Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/libunarr.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/libunarr-1.0.1-3.fc30.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 1694438] Review Request: ghc-parser-combinators - Lightweight package providing commonly useful parser combinators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694438
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 ---
- Bump to 1.0.1
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "BSD (unspecified)". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-parser-
combinators/review-ghc-parser-combinators/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.
[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.
[-]: 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 604160 bytes in 30 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ghc-
parser-combinators
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files
[Bug 1694366] Review Request: python-pre-commit - Framework for managing and maintaining multi-language pre-commit hooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694366
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 ---
- Your package is noarch, you don't need this:
%global debug_package %{nil}
No debuginfo is gathered for noarch packages.
- Bump to 1.15.1, drop the patch that has been merged
- Consider using: %?python_enable_dependency_generator
to automatically generates Requires instead of listing them. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EnablingPythonGenerators#How_To_Test
(enabled by default in F30)
- Please remove all the trailing spaces in your SPEC. Whatever editor you use
there should be an option to remove trailing spaces on save.
- Seems you don't have all Requires packaged yet:
DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: Error:
DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: Problem: conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: - nothing provides python3.7dist(aspy.yaml)
needed by python3-pre-commit-1.15.1-1.fc31.noarch
DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: - nothing provides
python3.7dist(importlib-metadata) needed by
python3-pre-commit-1.15.1-1.fc31.noarch
DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: - nothing provides python3.7dist(cfgv) >=
1.4.0 needed by python3-pre-commit-1.15.1-1.fc31.noarch
DEBUG util.py:554: BUILDSTDERR: - nothing provides python3.7dist(identify)
>= 1.0.0 needed by python3-pre-commit-1.15.1-1.fc31.noarch
- Run the tests with pytest
- Simply use:
Source0:%{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
= 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". 170 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-pre-commit/review-python-pre-
commit/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 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]: 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
[Bug 1691609] Review Request: python-yapf - A formatter for Python code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691609 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- python-yapf-0.26.0-2.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-41c1edd422 -- 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 1691609] Review Request: python-yapf - A formatter for Python code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691609 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- python-yapf-0.26.0-2.fc30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-5fcd2b143c -- 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 1694231] Review Request: libunarr - A decompression library for rar, tar and zip archives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694231 --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- It's documented here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Rawhide_.2F_devel_.2F_master "When a proposed update contains an ABI or API change: notify a week in advance both fedora-devel and maintainers directly (using the packagename-owner@ alias) whose packages depend on yours to rebuild or offer to do these rebuilds for them." -- 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 1694231] Review Request: libunarr - A decompression library for rar, tar and zip archives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694231
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
(In reply to Artem from comment #2)
> Quick fix:
>
> Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/libunarr.spec
> SRPM URL:
> https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/libunarr-1.0.1-2.fc30.src.rpm
>
> But i still need to work on this:
>
> > In order to avoid unintentional SONAME bumps, we now forbid globbing the
> *major* SONAME version.
>
> Should i notify about this upstream?
It has nothing to do with upstream, it's purely a SPEC problem.
Instead of using:
%{_libdir}/%{name}.so.*
Use:
%{_libdir}/%{name}.so.1*
That way, if upstream bump tho major soname to 2 (indicating an API change),
your package won't build automatically, you will need to manually bump the
SONAME. That procedure requires you to notify the devel mailing list one week
in advance so that consumer of your package can rebuild their packages once the
SONAME bump happens.
--
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 1694295] Review Request: gwe - System utility designed to provide information of NVIDIA card
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694295 --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Also package should probably be 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 1694295] Review Request: gwe - System utility designed to provide information of NVIDIA card
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694295
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Never add this to your SPEC unless good reasons:
%global debug_package %{nil}
- Please use the package name instead
BuildRequires: libappstream-glib
BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils
- I find it curious that you depend on these libraries for the build process,
and not the devel ones:
BuildRequires: libdazzle
BuildRequires: libnotify
Have you tried removing these BR? Should they not be RR only?
I'd wait for the PR. Packaging with bundled xlib is not okay.
--
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 1691609] Review Request: python-yapf - A formatter for Python code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691609 --- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-yapf -- 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 1694292] Review Request: yacreader - A cross platform comic reader and library manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694292
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- No:
%global debug_package %{nil}
- qmake-qt5 → %qmake_qt5
This will pass Fedora build flags and solve the previous problem.
- Just use:
{_datadir}/%{name}
instead of listing all files in this directory
- Don't use the .gz extension for man pages, glob the extension as the
compression may change in the future:
%{_mandir}/man1/%{appname}.1.*
%{_mandir}/man1/%{appname}Library.1.*
- add gcc-c++ as a BR
- Fix encoding and line encoding in %prep:
yacreader.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/yacreader/INSTALL.md
yacreader.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/yacreader/README.txt
yacreader.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/yacreader/README.txt
- Some of the source are under a different license:
BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License
---
yacreader-9.5.0/QsLog/QsLog.cpp
yacreader-9.5.0/QsLog/QsLog.h
yacreader-9.5.0/QsLog/QsLogDest.cpp
yacreader-9.5.0/QsLog/QsLogDest.h
yacreader-9.5.0/QsLog/QsLogDestConsole.cpp
yacreader-9.5.0/QsLog/QsLogDestConsole.h
yacreader-9.5.0/QsLog/QsLogDestFile.cpp
yacreader-9.5.0/QsLog/QsLogDestFile.h
yacreader-9.5.0/QsLog/QsLogDestFunctor.cpp
yacreader-9.5.0/QsLog/QsLogDestFunctor.h
yacreader-9.5.0/QsLog/QsLogLevel.h
yacreader-9.5.0/YACReaderLibrary/db/folder_item.h
yacreader-9.5.0/YACReaderLibrary/db/folder_model.cpp
yacreader-9.5.0/YACReaderLibrary/db/folder_model.h
Expat License
-
yacreader-9.5.0/common/pictureflow.cpp
yacreader-9.5.0/common/pictureflow.h
Please include them in License: and add a comment explaining the license
breakdown.
- http://www.yacreader.org/ is not a valid website. The correct one is
https://www.yacreader.com/
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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: BUILDSTDERR: warning: File listed twice:
/usr/share/yacreader/languages/yacreader_de.qm
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_duplicate_files
= 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "Expat License", "GPL (v3) GNU Lesser General Public License
(v3)". 1001 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/yacreader/review-
yacreader/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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 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
[Bug 1694231] Review Request: libunarr - A decompression library for rar, tar and zip archives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694231 --- Comment #2 from Artem --- Quick fix: Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/libunarr.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/libunarr-1.0.1-2.fc30.src.rpm But i still need to work on this: > In order to avoid unintentional SONAME bumps, we now forbid globbing the *major* SONAME version. Should i notify about this upstream? --- @Robert-André Mauchin, thank you for review. Learned a lot again. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1364631] Review Request: nodejs-glob-stream - A wrapper around node-glob to make it streamy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364631 Piotr Popieluch changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|piotr1...@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org -- 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 1691609] Review Request: python-yapf - A formatter for Python code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691609 Luis Bazan changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||python-yapf -- 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 1691609] Review Request: python-yapf - A formatter for Python code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691609 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 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 1694292] Review Request: yacreader - A cross platform comic reader and library manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694292
Artur Iwicki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@svgames.pl
--- Comment #1 from Artur Iwicki ---
>URL:www.yacreader.org
I believe this should be prefixed with the schema (http:// or https://).
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
>BuildRequires: /usr/bin/desktop-file-validate
You can use "desktop-file-utils" for this.
>%{_datadir}/%{name}/server/docroot/css/reset.css
>[...]
>%{_datadir}/%{name}/server/templates/libraries_iphone.tpl
Two things here:
1. While this list will make the package own files, the directories will remain
unowned. You need to add "%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}".
2. Alternatively, you can replace the whole list with just
"%{_datadir}/%{name}". This will include the directory and all its files
(recursively).
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directory_ownership
>%{_mandir}/man1/%{appname}.1.gz
>%{_mandir}/man1/%{appname}Library.1.gz
Do not assume that man pages will be gzipped. While this is the case now, it
might change sometime in the future. Use a wildcard so you can match any
compression method.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages
--
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 1694278] Review Request: python-fastpurge - A Python client for the Akamai Fast Purge API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694278
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Consider running the tests:
Source0: %url/archive/v%{version}/%{srcname}-%{version}.tar.gz
[…]
BuildRequires: python3dist(pytest)
BuildRequires: python3dist(akamai.edgegrid)
BuildRequires: python3dist(more_executors)
BuildRequires: python3dist(monotonic)
BuildRequires: python3dist(mock)
BuildRequires: python3dist(requests-mock)
[…]
%prep
%autosetup -n %{name}-%{version}
[…]
%check
%{__python3} -m pytest -v
You'll need to package python-akamai-edgegrid and python-more_executors, which
you should do anyway otherwise your package can't work.
--
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 1691609] Review Request: python-yapf - A formatter for Python code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691609
--- Comment #9 from Luis Bazan ---
I removed this line
find . -type f -name "*.py" -exec sed -i '/^#![ ]*\/usr\/bin\/env.*$/ d' {}
';'
is ok?
Cheers,
--
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 1691609] Review Request: python-yapf - A formatter for Python code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691609
--- Comment #8 from Luis Bazan ---
SPEC: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-yapf.spec
SRPM: https://lbazan.fedorapeople.org/python-yapf-0.26.0-2.fc29.src.rpm
- Please don't mix tabs and space in the SPEC. (FIXED)
- The source is 404. It should be (with tabs removed): (FIXED)
$ rpmlint python-yapf.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
License:ASL 2.0
URL:https://github.com/google/yapf
Source0:%{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz(the
url FIXED)
BuildArch: noarch
- Consider keeping the timestamps: (Added)
for lib in $(find . -type f -name "*.py"); do
sed '1{\@^#!/usr/bin/env python@d}' $lib > $lib.new &&
touch -r $lib $lib.new &&
mv $lib.new $lib
done
- Rename plugins/README.rst to README-plugins.rst otherwise both file are
written to the same place:
cp plugins/README.rst README-plugins.rst (FIXED)
%doc README-plugins.rst README.rst (FIXED)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1694231] Review Request: libunarr - A decompression library for rar, tar and zip archives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694231
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 ---
- AUTHORS should go in %doc:
%files
%doc AUTHORS CHANGELOG.md README.md
%license COPYING
%{_libdir}/%{name}.so.*
%files devel
%license COPYING
- In order to avoid unintentional SONAME bumps, we now forbid globbing the
*major* SONAME version:
%{_libdir}/%{name}.so.*
- Fix line encoding in %prep:
libunarr.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/libunarr/README.md
- Not really needed for F > 28
%ldconfig_scriptlets
Might keep it for EPEL7.
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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "Unknown or
generated". 48 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libunarr/review-
libunarr/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.
[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 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
[Bug 1693913] Review Request: coin-or-Data-miplib3 - COIN-OR mixed integer library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1693913
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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Eclipse Public License", "Expat
License". 75 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/coin-or-Data-
miplib3/review-coin-or-Data-miplib3/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/coin(coin-or-
Sample), /usr/share/coin/Data(coin-or-Sample)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
Note: coin-or-Data-miplib3 : /usr/share/pkgconfig/coindatamiplib3.pc
[-]: 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
[Bug 1693514] Review Request: coin-or-Data-Netlib - COIN-OR Netlib models
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1693514
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Ok.
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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Eclipse Public License", "Expat
License". 100 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/coin-or-Data-Netlib/review-
coin-or-Data-Netlib/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/coin(coin-or-
Sample), /usr/share/coin/Data(coin-or-Sample)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
Note: coin-or-Data-Netlib : /usr/share/pkgconfig/coindatanetlib.pc
[-]: 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
[Bug 1691609] Review Request: python-yapf - A formatter for Python code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691609
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Please don't mix tabs and space in the SPEC.
- The source is 404. It should be (with tabs removed):
License:ASL 2.0
URL:https://github.com/google/yapf
Source0:%{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildArch: noarch
- Consider keeping the timestamps:
for lib in $(find . -type f -name "*.py"); do
sed '1{\@^#!/usr/bin/env python@d}' $lib > $lib.new &&
touch -r $lib $lib.new &&
mv $lib.new $lib
done
- Rename plugins/README.rst to README-plugins.rst otherwise both file are
written to the same place:
cp plugins/README.rst README-plugins.rst
%doc README-plugins.rst README.rst
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: BUILDSTDERR: warning: File listed twice:
/usr/share/doc/python3-yapf/README.rst
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_duplicate_files
= 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", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)",
"Apache License (v2.0)". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-
yapf/review-python-yapf/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 30720 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]: 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
[Bug 1694805] Review Request: python-zeep - A fast and modern Python SOAP client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694805 --- Comment #1 from Georg Sauthoff --- Forgot the most important part: Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/gsauthof/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00874061-python-zeep/python-zeep.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/gsauthof/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00874061-python-zeep/python-zeep-3.3.1-1.fc31.src.rpm repository: https://github.com/gsauthof/copr-fedora/tree/master/python-zeep -- 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 1694805] New: Review Request: python-zeep - A fast and modern Python SOAP client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694805 Bug ID: 1694805 Summary: Review Request: python-zeep - A fast and modern Python SOAP client Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fed...@georg.so QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: SRPM URL: Description: Zeep inspects the WSDL document and generates the corresponding code to use the services and types in the document. This provides an easy to use programmatic interface to a SOAP server. Fedora Account System Username: gsauthof The dependency python-aioresponses is a recent addition to rawhide and queued for testing f29/f30 - cf. #1692999. -- 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 1692999] Review Request: python-aioresponses - mock aiohttp client sessions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1692999 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- python-aioresponses-0.6.0-1.fc30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-17e53fa70e -- 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 1692999] Review Request: python-aioresponses - mock aiohttp client sessions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1692999 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- python-aioresponses-0.6.0-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-43a3be691f -- 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 1578223] Review Request: python-yapf - A formatter for Python code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578223 Luis Bazan changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|DEFERRED|NOTABUG -- 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 1691609] Review Request: python-yapf - A formatter for Python code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691609 --- Comment #6 from Luis Bazan --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #4) > (In reply to Luis Bazan from comment #3) > > (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > > > Already exists at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578223 > > > > > > Follow dead review policy if no update from reporter. > > > > How much time is needed to continue with this review? > > > > Cheers, > > One week of no response: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews?rd=Extras/ > Policy/StalledReviews#Submitter_not_responding Hi Robert Can you continue with the review? Cheers, -- 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 1578223] Review Request: python-yapf - A formatter for Python code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578223 Luis Bazan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||bazanlui...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2019-04-01 17:00:13 --- Comment #7 from Luis Bazan --- It's been over a week with no response from the requestor. Closing as per policy. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews?rd=Extras Cheers, -- 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 1693987] Review Request: java-latest-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1693987 --- Comment #15 from Severin Gehwolf --- (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #14) > One expect digit in the middle. I'm curious: What expects it? A human? Some tooling? -- 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 1693987] Review Request: java-latest-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1693987 --- Comment #14 from jiri vanek --- One expect digit in the middle. -- 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 1694553] Review Request: oidn - Library of denoising filters for images rendered with ray tracing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694553 --- Comment #7 from Luya Tshimbalanga --- Updated SPECS: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/luya/LuxCoreRender/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00876179-oidn/oidn.spec SRPMS: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/luya/LuxCoreRender/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00876179-oidn/oidn-0.8.2-3.fc31.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 1693987] Review Request: java-latest-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1693987 --- Comment #13 from Severin Gehwolf --- (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #11) > (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #8) > > One more idea to consult with java sig: > > /usr/lib/jvm/java-12-openjdk-12.0.0.33-3.rolling.fc29.x86_64/ > > > > Maybe change the suffix to latest or sts? From those two I would vote > > latest, But only for consistency. From those three, I like rolling the most. > > We should consider installing to this location instead. This should avoid > the clash too when "latest == packaged LTS": > > /usr/lib/jvm/java-latest-openjdk--. Let me explain why I think this would be a good idea: - It avoids the installation clash when LTS == latest (last cycle with JDK 11) - It allows for easier "reinstall breaks alternatives fix". See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1200302#c67 So, Jiri, you disagree. What are your arguments against 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 1693987] Review Request: java-latest-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1693987 --- Comment #12 from jiri vanek --- Personally I disagree on this, but do not have exactly strongest opinion. -- 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 1693987] Review Request: java-latest-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1693987 --- Comment #11 from Severin Gehwolf --- (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #8) > One more idea to consult with java sig: > /usr/lib/jvm/java-12-openjdk-12.0.0.33-3.rolling.fc29.x86_64/ > > Maybe change the suffix to latest or sts? From those two I would vote > latest, But only for consistency. From those three, I like rolling the most. We should consider installing to this location instead. This should avoid the clash too when "latest == packaged LTS": /usr/lib/jvm/java-latest-openjdk--. -- 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 1691245] Review Request: nsdiff - create an "nsupdate" script from DNS zone file differences
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691245 --- Comment #3 from Petr Menšík --- Thanks, fixed in COPR. -- 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 1691245] Review Request: nsdiff - create an "nsupdate" script from DNS zone file differences
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1691245 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nsdiff -- 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 1693987] Review Request: java-latest-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1693987 --- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/java-latest-openjdk -- 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 1694735] Review Request: js8call - Fork of WSJT-X which allows QSOs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694735 --- Comment #1 from Richard Shaw --- Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33817221 -- 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 1694735] New: Review Request: js8call - Fork of WSJT-X which allows QSOs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694735 Bug ID: 1694735 Summary: Review Request: js8call - Fork of WSJT-X which allows QSOs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: hobbes1...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org//js8call.spec SRPM URL: https://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org//js8call-1.0.0-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: FT8Call is a derivative of the WSJT-X application, restructured and redesigned for keyboard-to-keyboard message passing. It is not supported by nor endorsed by the WSJT-X development group. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1665614] Review Request: libsecp256k1 - Optimized C library for EC operations on curve secp256k1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665614 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libsecp256k1 -- 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 1692999] Review Request: python-aioresponses - mock aiohttp client sessions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1692999 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-aioresponses -- 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 1693914] Review Request: python-pplpy - Python PPL wrapper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1693914 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pplpy -- 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 1689634] Review Request: mako - Lightweight Wayland notification daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689634 --- Comment #4 from Jan Staněk --- (In reply to Timothée Floure from comment #3) > I suspect you checked the upstream's master branch [0] instead of the v1.2 > tag [1]? Otherwise I don't undestand the above points since version 1.2 does > not depend on gdk and only requires meson >= 0.43.0. You are correct; sorry about that :) Just add the appropriate/relevant constraints then, please. > I will try to fix this upstream. Good. In case they will be unresponsive, just add it downstream and replace it with the upstream version once they add one. > I also have an issue with new default compiler flag generating build errors > [2]... I'll have to read some documentation! The upstream sets default build options (in meson.build) to `warning_level=2` and `werror=true`, so any warning generated is treated as error and aborts build. The `%set_build_flags` sets (among others) the `-Wall` flag, which I'm guessing is the equivalent of meson's `warning_level=3`. My bet is that our (Fedora) build flags sets off more compiler warnings, which the meson is configured (by upstream) to treats as errors. The proper way to fix that is to write/backport patches to the *source code* that fix those warnings. Since that can take a while, patching the meson.build to not contain `werror=true` is also an acceptable solution (although be sure to add explanation in comment if you do that). -- 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 1694553] Review Request: oidn - Library of denoising filters for images rendered with ray tracing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694553
--- Comment #6 from Vasiliy Glazov ---
Change
%{_libdir}/libOpenImageDenoise.so*
to
%{_libdir}/libOpenImageDenoise.so.*
--
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 1689486] Review Request: python-numcodecs - Buffer compression and transformation for data storage and communication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689486 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- python-numcodecs-0.6.3-2.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-92e5900abf -- 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 1689486] Review Request: python-numcodecs - Buffer compression and transformation for data storage and communication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689486 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- python-numcodecs-0.6.3-2.fc30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-d03cf47674 -- 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 1689486] Review Request: python-numcodecs - Buffer compression and transformation for data storage and communication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689486 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- python-numcodecs-0.6.3-2.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-c8e5057d70 -- 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 1694553] Review Request: oidn - Library of denoising filters for images rendered with ray tracing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694553 --- Comment #5 from Luya Tshimbalanga --- Updated files SPECS: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/luya/LuxCoreRender/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00876155-oidn/oidn.spec SRPMS: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/luya/LuxCoreRender/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00876155-oidn/oidn-0.8.2-3.fc31.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 1694553] Review Request: oidn - Library of denoising filters for images rendered with ray tracing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694553
--- Comment #4 from Vasiliy Glazov ---
You wrong move libs.
All versioned so-files must be in -libs subpackage. And only unversioned
so-file must be in -devel subpackage.
It should be like this:
%files libs
%{_libdir}/cmake/OpenImageDenoise
%{_libdir}/libOpenImageDenoise.so.*
%files devel
%{_includedir}/OpenImageDenoise
%{_libdir}/libOpenImageDenoise.so
--
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 1694553] Review Request: oidn - Library of denoising filters for images rendered with ray tracing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694553 --- Comment #3 from Luya Tshimbalanga --- 1. Done 2. Filed bug to upstream https://github.com/OpenImageDenoise/oidn/issues/24 3. Done 4. Fixed 5. Done 6. Done. I also added verbose=1 SPECS: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/luya/LuxCoreRender/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00876148-oidn/oidn.spec SRPMS: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/luya/LuxCoreRender/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00876148-oidn/oidn-0.8.2-2.fc31.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 1693987] Review Request: java-latest-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1693987 Severin Gehwolf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sgehw...@redhat.com --- Comment #9 from Severin Gehwolf --- (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #3) > This package can not obsolete java-openjdk, as it would obsolete > java-1.8.0-openjdk via manual provides of java-openjdk it have. > The java-openjdk package should be emptied together with this update, and > should require this new package as its implementation(thoughts?). This seems sensible. We should consider doing this for stable branches (F30, F29, F28) only though. For rawhide going forward post this review "dnf install java-openjdk" should install JDK 8. -- 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 1694553] Review Request: oidn - Library of denoising filters for images rendered with ray tracing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694553 --- Comment #2 from Vasiliy Glazov --- 6. Change %cmake to %cmake . (With path to curent directory - dot) -- 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 1694553] Review Request: oidn - Library of denoising filters for images rendered with ray tracing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694553
--- Comment #1 from Vasiliy Glazov ---
1. You must move /usr/lib64/libOpenImageDenoise.so to devel subpackage.
2. shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libOpenImageDenoise.so.0.8.2
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
So you should bugreport about this issue to upstream.
3. Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size(~1MB)
or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 3420160 bytes in 3 files.
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation
4. Change %{_libdir}/cmake to %{_libdir}/cmake/OpenImageDenoise
5. You should remove rm -rf %{buildroot}
--
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 1694553] Review Request: oidn - Library of denoising filters for images rendered with ray tracing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694553 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
