[Bug 1706540] Review Request: xxkb - A keyboard layout indicator and switcher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1706540 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- xxkb-1.11.1-5.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-d775e9fb0d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1710769] Review Request: desktopfolder - Bring your desktop back to life
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1710769 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- desktopfolder-1.1.1-2.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-2019-7346097c3c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1709029] Review Request: peek - Animated GIF screen recorder with an easy to use interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1709029 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- peek-1.3.1-5.20190508git6e76e30.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-2019-7ec6ad980e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1704404] Review Request: python-colcon-core - Command line tool to build sets of software packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704404 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- python-colcon-argcomplete-0.3.2-2.fc29, python-colcon-bash-0.3.2-2.fc29, python-colcon-bazel-0.1.0-2.fc29, python-colcon-bundle-0.0.13-1.fc29, python-colcon-cmake-0.2.12-1.fc29, python-colcon-common-extensions-0.2.0-2.fc29, python-colcon-core-0.3.22-1.fc29, python-colcon-defaults-0.2.2-1.fc29, python-colcon-devtools-0.2.1-2.fc29, python-colcon-library-path-0.2.1-3.fc29, python-colcon-metadata-0.2.2-1.fc29, python-colcon-mixin-0.1.5-1.fc29, python-colcon-notification-0.2.8-2.fc29, python-colcon-output-0.2.3-2.fc29, python-colcon-package-information-0.2.2-2.fc29, python-colcon-package-selection-0.2.4-2.fc29, python-colcon-parallel-executor-0.2.4-1.fc29, python-colcon-pkg-config-0.1.0-2.fc29, python-colcon-powershell-0.3.4-2.fc29, python-colcon-python-setup-py-0.2.1-2.fc29, python-colcon-recursive-crawl-0.2.0-2.fc29, python-colcon-ros-0.3.10-1.fc29, python-colcon-ros-bazel-0.0.1-2.fc29, python-colcon-spawn-shell-0.2.0-2.fc29, python-colcon-test-result-0.3.3-1.fc29, python-colcon-zsh-0.3.2-2.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-2019-8c026ae268 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1712011] Review Request: stacer - Linux system optimizer and monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1712011 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- stacer-1.1.0-6.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-2019-56a6a7e2e7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1704408] Review Request: python-colcon-argcomplete - Completion for colcon command lines using argcomplete
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704408 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- python-colcon-argcomplete-0.3.2-2.fc29, python-colcon-bash-0.3.2-2.fc29, python-colcon-bazel-0.1.0-2.fc29, python-colcon-bundle-0.0.13-1.fc29, python-colcon-cmake-0.2.12-1.fc29, python-colcon-common-extensions-0.2.0-2.fc29, python-colcon-core-0.3.22-1.fc29, python-colcon-defaults-0.2.2-1.fc29, python-colcon-devtools-0.2.1-2.fc29, python-colcon-library-path-0.2.1-3.fc29, python-colcon-metadata-0.2.2-1.fc29, python-colcon-mixin-0.1.5-1.fc29, python-colcon-notification-0.2.8-2.fc29, python-colcon-output-0.2.3-2.fc29, python-colcon-package-information-0.2.2-2.fc29, python-colcon-package-selection-0.2.4-2.fc29, python-colcon-parallel-executor-0.2.4-1.fc29, python-colcon-pkg-config-0.1.0-2.fc29, python-colcon-powershell-0.3.4-2.fc29, python-colcon-python-setup-py-0.2.1-2.fc29, python-colcon-recursive-crawl-0.2.0-2.fc29, python-colcon-ros-0.3.10-1.fc29, python-colcon-ros-bazel-0.0.1-2.fc29, python-colcon-spawn-shell-0.2.0-2.fc29, python-colcon-test-result-0.3.3-1.fc29, python-colcon-zsh-0.3.2-2.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-2019-8c026ae268 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1704409] Review Request: python-colcon-common-extensions - Meta package aggregating colcon-core and common extensions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704409 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- python-colcon-argcomplete-0.3.2-2.fc29, python-colcon-bash-0.3.2-2.fc29, python-colcon-bazel-0.1.0-2.fc29, python-colcon-bundle-0.0.13-1.fc29, python-colcon-cmake-0.2.12-1.fc29, python-colcon-common-extensions-0.2.0-2.fc29, python-colcon-core-0.3.22-1.fc29, python-colcon-defaults-0.2.2-1.fc29, python-colcon-devtools-0.2.1-2.fc29, python-colcon-library-path-0.2.1-3.fc29, python-colcon-metadata-0.2.2-1.fc29, python-colcon-mixin-0.1.5-1.fc29, python-colcon-notification-0.2.8-2.fc29, python-colcon-output-0.2.3-2.fc29, python-colcon-package-information-0.2.2-2.fc29, python-colcon-package-selection-0.2.4-2.fc29, python-colcon-parallel-executor-0.2.4-1.fc29, python-colcon-pkg-config-0.1.0-2.fc29, python-colcon-powershell-0.3.4-2.fc29, python-colcon-python-setup-py-0.2.1-2.fc29, python-colcon-recursive-crawl-0.2.0-2.fc29, python-colcon-ros-0.3.10-1.fc29, python-colcon-ros-bazel-0.0.1-2.fc29, python-colcon-spawn-shell-0.2.0-2.fc29, python-colcon-test-result-0.3.3-1.fc29, python-colcon-zsh-0.3.2-2.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-2019-8c026ae268 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1718122] Review Request: R-tinytest - Lightweight but Feature Complete Unit Testing Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1718122 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1717862 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1717862 [Bug 1717862] R-stringdist-0.9.5.2 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1716729] Review Request: osslsigncode - Tool for Authenticode signing of EXE/CAB files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716729 --- Comment #3 from Gordon Messmer --- 6: "The contents of the buildroot SHOULD NOT be removed in the first line of %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 1716729] Review Request: osslsigncode - Tool for Authenticode signing of EXE/CAB files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716729 --- Comment #2 from Gordon Messmer --- I should add: 5: Group: is not used in Fedora -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1710769] Review Request: desktopfolder - Bring your desktop back to life
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1710769 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- desktopfolder-1.1.1-2.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-cce8d47f3a -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1703477] Review Request: recorder - A lock-free, real-time flight recorder for C or C++ programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1703477 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- recorder-1.0.8-1.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-c5dcef4685 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1709029] Review Request: peek - Animated GIF screen recorder with an easy to use interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1709029 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- peek-1.3.1-5.20190508git6e76e30.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-da79a28386 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1712011] Review Request: stacer - Linux system optimizer and monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1712011 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- stacer-1.1.0-6.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-d42de0a34c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1704404] Review Request: python-colcon-core - Command line tool to build sets of software packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704404 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- python-colcon-argcomplete-0.3.2-2.fc30, python-colcon-bash-0.3.2-2.fc30, python-colcon-bazel-0.1.0-2.fc30, python-colcon-bundle-0.0.13-1.fc30, python-colcon-cmake-0.2.12-1.fc30, python-colcon-common-extensions-0.2.0-2.fc30, python-colcon-core-0.3.22-1.fc30, python-colcon-defaults-0.2.2-1.fc30, python-colcon-devtools-0.2.1-2.fc30, python-colcon-library-path-0.2.1-3.fc30, python-colcon-metadata-0.2.2-1.fc30, python-colcon-mixin-0.1.5-1.fc30, python-colcon-notification-0.2.8-2.fc30, python-colcon-output-0.2.3-2.fc30, python-colcon-package-information-0.2.2-2.fc30, python-colcon-package-selection-0.2.4-2.fc30, python-colcon-parallel-executor-0.2.4-1.fc30, python-colcon-pkg-config-0.1.0-2.fc30, python-colcon-powershell-0.3.4-2.fc30, python-colcon-python-setup-py-0.2.1-2.fc30, python-colcon-recursive-crawl-0.2.0-2.fc30, python-colcon-ros-0.3.10-1.fc30, python-colcon-ros-bazel-0.0.1-2.fc30, python-colcon-spawn-shell-0.2.0-2.fc30, python-colcon-test-result-0.3.3-1.fc30, python-colcon-zsh-0.3.2-2.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-2019-8c1b78e3f3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1706540] Review Request: xxkb - A keyboard layout indicator and switcher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1706540 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- xxkb-1.11.1-5.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-2019-266c287d9e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1704409] Review Request: python-colcon-common-extensions - Meta package aggregating colcon-core and common extensions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704409 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- python-colcon-argcomplete-0.3.2-2.fc30, python-colcon-bash-0.3.2-2.fc30, python-colcon-bazel-0.1.0-2.fc30, python-colcon-bundle-0.0.13-1.fc30, python-colcon-cmake-0.2.12-1.fc30, python-colcon-common-extensions-0.2.0-2.fc30, python-colcon-core-0.3.22-1.fc30, python-colcon-defaults-0.2.2-1.fc30, python-colcon-devtools-0.2.1-2.fc30, python-colcon-library-path-0.2.1-3.fc30, python-colcon-metadata-0.2.2-1.fc30, python-colcon-mixin-0.1.5-1.fc30, python-colcon-notification-0.2.8-2.fc30, python-colcon-output-0.2.3-2.fc30, python-colcon-package-information-0.2.2-2.fc30, python-colcon-package-selection-0.2.4-2.fc30, python-colcon-parallel-executor-0.2.4-1.fc30, python-colcon-pkg-config-0.1.0-2.fc30, python-colcon-powershell-0.3.4-2.fc30, python-colcon-python-setup-py-0.2.1-2.fc30, python-colcon-recursive-crawl-0.2.0-2.fc30, python-colcon-ros-0.3.10-1.fc30, python-colcon-ros-bazel-0.0.1-2.fc30, python-colcon-spawn-shell-0.2.0-2.fc30, python-colcon-test-result-0.3.3-1.fc30, python-colcon-zsh-0.3.2-2.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-2019-8c1b78e3f3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1704408] Review Request: python-colcon-argcomplete - Completion for colcon command lines using argcomplete
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704408 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- python-colcon-argcomplete-0.3.2-2.fc30, python-colcon-bash-0.3.2-2.fc30, python-colcon-bazel-0.1.0-2.fc30, python-colcon-bundle-0.0.13-1.fc30, python-colcon-cmake-0.2.12-1.fc30, python-colcon-common-extensions-0.2.0-2.fc30, python-colcon-core-0.3.22-1.fc30, python-colcon-defaults-0.2.2-1.fc30, python-colcon-devtools-0.2.1-2.fc30, python-colcon-library-path-0.2.1-3.fc30, python-colcon-metadata-0.2.2-1.fc30, python-colcon-mixin-0.1.5-1.fc30, python-colcon-notification-0.2.8-2.fc30, python-colcon-output-0.2.3-2.fc30, python-colcon-package-information-0.2.2-2.fc30, python-colcon-package-selection-0.2.4-2.fc30, python-colcon-parallel-executor-0.2.4-1.fc30, python-colcon-pkg-config-0.1.0-2.fc30, python-colcon-powershell-0.3.4-2.fc30, python-colcon-python-setup-py-0.2.1-2.fc30, python-colcon-recursive-crawl-0.2.0-2.fc30, python-colcon-ros-0.3.10-1.fc30, python-colcon-ros-bazel-0.0.1-2.fc30, python-colcon-spawn-shell-0.2.0-2.fc30, python-colcon-test-result-0.3.3-1.fc30, python-colcon-zsh-0.3.2-2.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-2019-8c1b78e3f3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1718122] New: Review Request: R-tinytest - Lightweight but Feature Complete Unit Testing Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1718122 Bug ID: 1718122 Summary: Review Request: R-tinytest - Lightweight but Feature Complete Unit Testing Framework Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: quantum.anal...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-tinytest.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-tinytest-0.9.4-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: Provides a lightweight (zero-dependency) and easy to use unit testing framework. Main features: install tests with the package. Test results are treated as data that can be stored and manipulated. Test files are R scripts interspersed with test commands, that can be programmed over. Fully automated build-install-test sequence for packages. Skip tests when not run locally (e.g. on CRAN). Flexible and configurable output printing. Compare computed output with output stored with the package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1716729] Review Request: osslsigncode - Tool for Authenticode signing of EXE/CAB files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716729 Gordon Messmer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gordon.mess...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Gordon Messmer --- Hello, Marek. I am also not yet sponsored, but I would like to offer some feedback which might help you get this package through the review process more quickly when a sponsored packager looks at it. These are merely suggestions, but I believe that a reviewer will flag each of these issues: 1: "MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license." The LICENSE.txt file appears to indicate that this project uses GPLv3+, with an exception to allow linking to OpenSSL. Your spec indicates GPLv2+, but I believe that "GPLv3+ with exceptions" would be appropriate. I might be wrong. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing 2: "MUST: 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 must be included in %license" You should add "%license LICENSE.txt" to the spec. 3: I would recommend making a koji scratch build in order to demonstrate that the package builds in mock: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Install_the_developer_client_tools 4: "The BuildRoot: tag, Group: tag, and %clean section SHOULD NOT be used." You should remove the BuildRoot tag and the %clean section: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1718122] Review Request: R-tinytest - Lightweight but Feature Complete Unit Testing Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1718122 --- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35353783 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1710769] Review Request: desktopfolder - Bring your desktop back to life
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1710769 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-7346097c3c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-7346097c3c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1710769] Review Request: desktopfolder - Bring your desktop back to life
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1710769 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-cce8d47f3a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-cce8d47f3a -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1712011] Review Request: stacer - Linux system optimizer and monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1712011 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-56a6a7e2e7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-56a6a7e2e7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1712011] Review Request: stacer - Linux system optimizer and monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1712011 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-d42de0a34c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-d42de0a34c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1706540] Review Request: xxkb - A keyboard layout indicator and switcher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1706540 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-d775e9fb0d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-d775e9fb0d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1706540] Review Request: xxkb - A keyboard layout indicator and switcher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1706540 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-266c287d9e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-266c287d9e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1709029] Review Request: peek - Animated GIF screen recorder with an easy to use interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1709029 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-7ec6ad980e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-7ec6ad980e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1709029] Review Request: peek - Animated GIF screen recorder with an easy to use interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1709029 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-da79a28386 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-da79a28386 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1701013] Review Request: python-pyside2 - Python bindings for the Qt 5 cross-platform application and UI framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1701013
Carl George changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #20 from Carl George ---
Package approved.
There are a few other "should" items that can be cleaned up, but I don't want
to hold up the review any longer for them. Fix them at your leisure.
* Enable the test suite in the future if you are able.
* I don't see what your jobs macro is used for, and it's throwing a warning for
using define instead of global. Remove it if you can, or switch it to global.
* /usr/lib64/python3.7/site-packages/pyside2uic/icon_cache.py is throwing some
warnings due to it's shebang line. Strip that out if you can.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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]:
[Bug 1718076] New: Review Request: golang-github-jacobsa-reqtrace - A lightweight request tracing package for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1718076 Bug ID: 1718076 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-jacobsa-reqtrace - A lightweight request tracing package for Go Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: bexel...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://bex.fedorapeople.org/golang-github-jacobsa-reqtrace/golang-github-jacobsa-reqtrace.spec SRPM URL: https://bex.fedorapeople.org/golang-github-jacobsa-reqtrace/golang-github-jacobsa-reqtrace-0-0.1.20190517git245c9e0.fc30.src.rpm Description: A lightweight request tracing package for Go Fedora Account System Username: bex Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35346636 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1704409] Review Request: python-colcon-common-extensions - Meta package aggregating colcon-core and common extensions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704409 Scott K Logan changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |colcon-common-extensions - |python-colcon-common-extens |Meta package aggregating|ions - Meta package |colcon-core and common |aggregating colcon-core and |extensions |common extensions -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1704408] Review Request: python-colcon-argcomplete - Completion for colcon command lines using argcomplete
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704408 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2019-4523f59ce0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-4523f59ce0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1704409] Review Request: colcon-common-extensions - Meta package aggregating colcon-core and common extensions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704409 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2019-4523f59ce0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-4523f59ce0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1704404] Review Request: python-colcon-core - Command line tool to build sets of software packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704404 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2019-4523f59ce0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-4523f59ce0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1712011] Review Request: stacer - Linux system optimizer and monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1712011 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/stacer -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 Flags||needinfo?(re...@seznam.cz) --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Any news 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 1713868] Review Request: python-pyvit - A Python Vehicle Interface Toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713868
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)". 37
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-pyvit/review-python-
pyvit/licensecheck.txt
[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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and
[Bug 1709855] Review Request: python-crcelk - A Python implementation of the CRC algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1709855
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", "Expat License". 7 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-crcelk/review-python-
crcelk/licensecheck.txt
[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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file
[Bug 1709825] Review Request: xortool - A tool for XOR cipher analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1709825
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 #5 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 15 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/xortool/review-xortool/licensecheck.txt
[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]: 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 are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec
[Bug 1713983] Review Request: hashid - A tool to identify different types of hashes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713983
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3 or later)", "*No copyright*
GPL (v3 or later)". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/hashid/review-
hashid/licensecheck.txt
[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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections
[Bug 1713969] Review Request: python-baluhn - A base-independent implementation of the Luhn algorithm for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713969
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 ---
- License is Unlicense not Public Domain
License:Unlicense
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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-
baluhn/review-python-baluhn/licensecheck.txt
[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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary
[Bug 1706548] Review Request: simple-dnf - Simple graphical utility for DNF package management
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1706548
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 #4 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- What's this?
AutoReqProv:no
- Use a better name for the archive:
Source0:
https://github.com/Arkelis/%{pyname}/archive/v{%version}/%{pyname}-%{version}.tar.gz
- What's this patch? What does it do? Why is it needed? Add a comment to
explain so:
Patch0: simple-dnf.patch
- Remove the shebang in %prep:
simple-dnf.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/simple_dnf/__main__.py 644 /usr/bin/python3
- Remove executable bits in %prep:
simple-dnf.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/simple-dnf/README.md
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", "GPL (v3 or later)". 8 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/simple-dnf/review-simple-
dnf/licensecheck.txt
[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).
[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]: 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
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
[Bug 1713913] Review Request: python-javalang - A pure Python Java parser and tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713913
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". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-
javalang/review-python-javalang/licensecheck.txt
[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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
[Bug 1713906] Review Request: python-aiozeroconf- An asyncio/pure Python implementation of mDNS service discovery
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713906
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 ---
- You must install the license file COPYING with %license in %files and you
should install README.rst with %doc
- Install examples with %doc
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.
[!]: 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", "Expat License", "Expat License GNU
Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)". 9 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-aiozeroconf/review-python-
aiozeroconf/licensecheck.txt
[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]: 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 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]: 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
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
[Bug 1713859] Review Request: cantoolz - A framework for Controller Area Network (CAN) bus analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713859
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License (v2.0)", "Expat
License". 126 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/cantoolz/review-
cantoolz/licensecheck.txt
[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]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec
[Bug 1713794] Review Request: python-mido - A Python library for working with MIDI messages and ports
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713794
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 but package the missing deps for the tests.
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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 122 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-mido/review-python-
mido/licensecheck.txt
[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]: 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 are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[Bug 1706366] Review Request: gnome-shell-theme-flat-remix - Pretty simple theme inspired on material design
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1706366 --- Comment #3 from Artem --- @Markku Korkeala, apologize i missed email. 路♂️ > - Not sure why rpmlint warns about this, the URL works in the browser: > gnome-shell-theme-flat-remix.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: > https://drasite.com/flat-remix-gnome > Fine for me, but i noticed some maintainers have this issue too when reviewing. @Robert, fixed. Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gnome-shell-theme-flat-remix.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gnome-shell-theme-flat-remix-0.0.20190530-1.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 1713851] Review Request: zimg - Scaling, color space conversion, and dithering library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713851
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 ---
- We now forbid globbing the major soname version to avoid unintentional
soname bump, be more specific instead:
%{_libdir}/*.so.2*
Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
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: "Unknown or generated", "do What The Fuck you want to Public
License (v2)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "GNU General Public License",
"Expat License". 228 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/zimg/review-
zimg/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 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and
[Bug 1718007] New: Review Request: python-crochet - A library that makes it easier to use Twisted from blocking code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1718007 Bug ID: 1718007 Summary: Review Request: python-crochet - A library that makes it easier to use Twisted from blocking code Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jer...@jcline.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora SRPM: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/python-crochet-1.10.0-1.fc30.src.rpm Spec: https://jcline.fedorapeople.org/python-crochet.spec Description: Crochet is an MIT-licensed library that makes it easier to use Twisted from regular blocking code. Some use cases include: - Easily use Twisted from a blocking framework like Django or Flask. - Write a library that provides a blocking API, but uses Twisted for its implementation. - Port blocking code to Twisted more easily, by keeping a backwards compatibility layer. - Allow normal Twisted programs that use threads to interact with Twisted more cleanly from their threaded parts. For example, this can be useful when using Twisted as a WSGI container. FAS: jcline Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=35341225 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1713315] Review Request: perl-AnyEvent-HTTP-Server - AnyEvent HTTP/1.1 Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713315 --- Comment #3 from Yanko Kaneti --- Thanks for the review and sorry for having so many issues to begin with. I've followed most of your recommendation except (maybe the most important one ;): - > The upstream calls the software AnyEvent-HTTP-Server-II. Name this package perl-AnyEvent-HTTP-Server-II. There is no reason for diverging. I think the only reason there is a -II repository is for the authors desire to stress that the module has been mostly rewritten. For all other intents and purposes this is perl-AnyEvent-HTTP-Server version 2.0 (a 1.9... prerelease) and the name conflict is intentional, even the readme says so. - TODO: Remove the unversioned dependencies on 'perl(AnyEvent)', 'perl(Digest::SHA1)', and 'perl(JSON::XS)'. They are redundant. This sounds to me like a regression in rpm-build, the release notes for rpm 4.13 explicitly say "Filter automatic unversioned dependencies when versioned ones exist (RhBug:678605)" with rationale being a perl related bug -3 Incorporate review feedack (#1713315) Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/perl-AnyEvent-HTTP-Server/perl-AnyEvent-HTTP-Server.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/perl-AnyEvent-HTTP-Server/perl-AnyEvent-HTTP-Server-1.99981-3.20190523gitb09c2c7.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 1717614] Review Request: rust-prometheus - Prometheus instrumentation library for Rust applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1717614 Artem changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||ego.corda...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ego.corda...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Artem --- Package was generated through rust2rpm, simplifying the review considerably. - Conforms to packaging guidelines (rust2rpm generated spec) - license correct and valid - only sources installed ! No license file ! Dot symbol in summary Otherwise OK. 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 1716584] Review Request: rust-try_or - Contains helper macros for unwrapping Results and Options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716584 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|NEW Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Igor Gnatenko --- But please, remove dot from summary and add license files. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1716584] Review Request: rust-try_or - Contains helper macros for unwrapping Results and Options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716584 Artem changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Artem --- 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 1716673] Review Request: rust-libsystemd - A pure-Rust client library to work with systemd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716673 Artem changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ego.corda...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ego.corda...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Artem --- Package was generated through rust2rpm, simplifying the review considerably. - Conforms to packaging guidelines (rust2rpm generated spec) - license correct and valid - only sources installed ! No license file. ! Need dot in end of description. Otherwise OK. 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 1716584] Review Request: rust-try_or - Contains helper macros for unwrapping Results and Options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716584 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko --- This does not apply to the rust packages -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1716584] Review Request: rust-try_or - Contains helper macros for unwrapping Results and Options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716584 Artem changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ego.corda...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ego.corda...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Artem --- Package was generated through rust2rpm, simplifying the review considerably. ! No license file ! Dot in summary ! Issue with naming package. The maintainer MUST NOT use an underscore '_' https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_separators -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1717652] Review Request: prusa-slicer - G-code generator for 3D printers (RepRap, Makerbot, Ultimaker etc.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1717652 --- Comment #11 from Jason Tibbitts --- I filed https://github.com/prusa3d/PrusaSlicer/issues/2468 asking for them to take some better screenshots and put them in a stable location. They may be getting tired of bugs from me, though. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1716579] Review Request: rust-envsubst - A simple Rust library for variables substitution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716579 Artem changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||ego.corda...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ego.corda...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Artem --- Package was generated through rust2rpm, simplifying the review considerably. - Conforms to packaging guidelines (rust2rpm generated spec) - license correct and valid - only sources installed ! No license file, otherwise OK. 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 1713604] Review Request: onvifviewer - Network camera viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713604 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- Ugh, this is complicated. I'm going to have to discuss this internally. Please hold on doing anything with this package for the time being. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1717652] Review Request: prusa-slicer - G-code generator for 3D printers (RepRap, Makerbot, Ultimaker etc.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1717652 --- Comment #10 from Miro Hrončok --- Maybe we can take a screenshot and put it to their debian branch together with the appdata file? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1717652] Review Request: prusa-slicer - G-code generator for 3D printers (RepRap, Makerbot, Ultimaker etc.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1717652 --- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts --- Given that PrusaSlicer does firmware updates, I'd say it does at least some "control" even if it has temporarily lost the ability to directly drive the printer via USB. I looked for a better screenshot but none is provided by upstream. The ones on the main Prusa site are either embedded in movies or small. I don't think we're supposed to just take a random screenshot and put it in some Fedora space, are we? It certainly wouldn't be appropriate to put it in some personal location. Their provided Debian packaging doesn't include an appdata file so that's no help. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1715821] Review Request: conmon - OCI container runtime monitor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1715821 Jindrich Novy changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(l...@redhat.com) --- Comment #3 from Jindrich Novy --- Or maybe to remove conmon from podman first so there's no file conflict in rawhide? And adding relevant (soft) requires on podman's side? Then still explicit Conflict: podman <= podman-ver tag needs to be in the spec of conmon to preven file conflict with older podman as file conflict will take place when the transaction is actually executed. The whole installation would then fail. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1715821] Review Request: conmon - OCI container runtime monitor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1715821 Lokesh Mandvekar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(l...@redhat.com) | --- Comment #2 from Lokesh Mandvekar --- Ha yup, I'll add that change in a bit. Thanks, -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1715821] Review Request: conmon - OCI container runtime monitor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1715821 Jindrich Novy changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(l...@redhat.com) --- Comment #1 from Jindrich Novy --- Hi Lokesh, not sure it's too relevant to f31 I believe but would make sense to avoid file conflicts with podman by addition of appropriate Conflicts/Requires tags in the spec file: Error: Transaction check error: file /usr/libexec/podman/conmon from install of conmon-2:0.2.0-1.fc30.x86_64 conflicts with file from package podman-2:1.3.1-1.git7210727.fc30.x86_64 Tested this on f30, as you see. Thanks, Jindrich -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1703477] Review Request: recorder - A lock-free, real-time flight recorder for C or C++ programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1703477 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-c5dcef4685 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-c5dcef4685 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1713686] Review Request: python-pytest-xprocess - pytest plugin to manage external processes across test runs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713686
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 ---
- Capitalize the summary
-
Source0:
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/%{pypi_name}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz
→ %{pypi_source}
- %{python3_sitelib}/__pycache__/* is included twice.
- There's no tests included, you can remove %check:
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
BUILDSTDERR:
--
BUILDSTDERR: Ran 0 tests in 0.000s
BUILDSTDERR: OK
- Remove the executable bits on the README file in %prep
python3-pytest-xprocess.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/python3-pytest-xprocess/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/lib/python3.7/site-
packages/__pycache__/pytest_xprocess.cpython-37.opt-1.pyc
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* Expat License". 20
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-pytest-xprocess/review-python-
pytest-xprocess/licensecheck.txt
[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]: 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]: 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
[Bug 1713315] Review Request: perl-AnyEvent-HTTP-Server - AnyEvent HTTP/1.1 Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713315
--- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ---
FIX: The upstream calls the software AnyEvent-HTTP-Server-II. Name this package
perl-AnyEvent-HTTP-Server-II. There is no reason for diverging.
Url and Source addresses are Ok.
Source archive (SHA-256:
461a4f3bc3897ab9e26cf3f0db51d193370f150fe95dce3daf1a65f8e19f7542) is original.
Ok.
TODO: Remove a Group tag. It should not be used in Fedora.
License verified from lib/AnyEvent/HTTP/Server/Req.pm,
lib/AnyEvent/HTTP/Server.pm, README, Makefile.PL, LICENSE. Ok.
FIX: Build-require 'perl-interpreter' (perl-AnyEvent-HTTP-Server.spec:29).
TODO: You should use plain 'perl' commands instead of '%{__perl}' macro.
FIX: Build-require 'make' (perl-AnyEvent-HTTP-Server.spec:41).
FIX: Either build-require findutils (perl-AnyEvent-HTTP-Server.spec:46), or
build-require 'perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) >= 6.76' and supply 'NO_PACKLIST=1
NO_PERLLOCAL=1' arguments Makefile.PL. Then you don't have to run the two find
commands and instead of 'make pure_install...' you can just call
'%{make_install}'.
TODO: Use '%{make_build} instead of 'make %{?_smp_mflags}'.
TODO: Do not package META.json file. It does not bring any new data to the
users.
TODO: Package 'ex' directory as a documentation.
TODO: Unset AUTHOR environment variable before runnig Makefile.PL. Otherwise
the build would require additional dependencies.
FIX: Build-require 'perl(:VERSION) >= 5.10' (lib/AnyEvent/HTTP/Server/WS.pm:3).
FIX: Build-require 'perl(Data::Dumper)', 'perl(feature)',
'perl(strict)','perl(utf8)', 'perl(warnings)' (Kit.pm.PL).
FIX: Build-require 'perl(AnyEvent::Handle)' (t/01-basic.t:7).
FIX: Build-require 'perl(AnyEvent::Socket)' (t/01-basic.t:6).
FIX: Build-require 'perl(Test::More)' (COMPILE t/01-basic.t:11).
FIX: Build-require 'perl(AnyEvent::Util) (lib/AnyEvent/HTTP/Server.pm:28).
FIX: Build-require 'perl(Config)' (lib/AnyEvent/HTTP/Server/WS.pm:7).
FIX: Build-require 'prl(constant)' (lib/AnyEvent/HTTP/Server/Req.pm:57).
FIX: Build-require 'perl(Encode)' (lib/AnyEvent/HTTP/Server.pm:31).
FIX: Build-require 'perl(MIME::Base64)' (lib/AnyEvent/HTTP/Server.pm:33).
FIX: Build-require 'perl(overload)' (lib/AnyEvent/HTTP/Server/Req.pm:19).
FIX: Build-require 'perl(Scalar::Util)' (lib/AnyEvent/HTTP/Server.pm:26).
FIX: Build-require 'perl(Socket)' (lib/AnyEvent/HTTP/Server.pm:29).
FIX: Build-require 'perl(Time::HiRes) (lib/AnyEvent/HTTP/Server.pm:34).
$ rpmlint perl-AnyEvent-HTTP-Server.spec
../SRPMS/perl-AnyEvent-HTTP-Server-1.99981-2.20190523gitb09c2c7.fc31.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-AnyEvent-HTTP-Server-1.99981-2.20190523gitb09c2c7.fc31.noarch.rpm
/usr/share/rpmlint/Pkg.py:168: UnicodeWarning: decode() called on unicode
string, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1693751
s.decode('UTF-8')
/usr/share/rpmlint/Pkg.py:168: UnicodeWarning: decode() called on unicode
string, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1693751
s.decode('UTF-8')
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.
$ rpm -q -lv -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-AnyEvent-HTTP-Server-1.99981-2.20190523gitb09c2c7.fc31.noarch.rpm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jun 6 16:24
/usr/share/doc/perl-AnyEvent-HTTP-Server
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 525 Oct 28 2018
/usr/share/doc/perl-AnyEvent-HTTP-Server/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 941 Oct 28 2018
/usr/share/doc/perl-AnyEvent-HTTP-Server/META.json
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2551 Oct 28 2018
/usr/share/doc/perl-AnyEvent-HTTP-Server/README.md
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jun 6 16:24
/usr/share/licenses/perl-AnyEvent-HTTP-Server
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 157 Oct 28 2018
/usr/share/licenses/perl-AnyEvent-HTTP-Server/LICENSE
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3374 Jun 6 16:24
/usr/share/man/man3/AnyEvent::HTTP::Server.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3037 Jun 6 16:24
/usr/share/man/man3/AnyEvent::HTTP::Server::Req.3pm.gz
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jun 6 16:24
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/AnyEvent
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jun 6 16:24
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/AnyEvent/HTTP
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jun 6 16:24
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/AnyEvent/HTTP/Server
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot31675 Oct 28 2018
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/AnyEvent/HTTP/Server.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2713 Jun 6 16:24
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/AnyEvent/HTTP/Server/Kit.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot20105 Oct 28 2018
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/AnyEvent/HTTP/Server/Req.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 8958 Oct 28 2018
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/AnyEvent/HTTP/Server/WS.pm
File permissions and locations are Ok.
$ rpm -q --requires -p
[Bug 1713604] Review Request: onvifviewer - Network camera viewer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713604
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal)
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Not needed:
rm -rf %{buildroot}
>The tests in the package require a X server. Is this possible during a
>rpmbuild? Is it useful to run these tests?
You could try running them with xvfb-run, not sure it will work.
> The source files related to the ONVIF protocol may be distributed, but not
> modified. Is this allowed in the source package? Does this need to be stated
> in the spec file? Does this change the license of the binary (and with that
> the License field)?
I'm not sure, asking FE-Legal opinion on this
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235
[Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1712258] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-derivers - Deriving plugin registry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1712258
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: 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 2-clause "Simplified" License". 9
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/ocaml-ppx-derivers/review-ocaml-ppx-
derivers/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 20480 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test
[Bug 1716087] Review Request: rust-cargo-bloat - Find out what takes most of the space in your executable
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716087 Artem changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ego.corda...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Artem --- Package was generated through rust2rpm, simplifying the review considerably. - Conforms to packaging guidelines (rust2rpm generated spec) - license correct and valid - only sources installed 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 1716149] Review Request: rust-tokio-buf - Asynchronous stream of byte buffers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716149 Artem changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ego.corda...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Artem --- Package was generated through rust2rpm, simplifying the review considerably. - Conforms to packaging guidelines (rust2rpm generated spec) - license correct and valid - only sources installed 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 1716056] Review Request: rust-actix-files - Static files support for actix web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716056 Artem changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ego.corda...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Artem --- Package was generated through rust2rpm, simplifying the review considerably. - Conforms to packaging guidelines (rust2rpm generated spec) - license correct and valid - only sources installed 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 1716150] Review Request: rust-http-body - Trait representing an asynchronous, streaming, HTTP request or response body
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716150 Artem changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||ego.corda...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ego.corda...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Artem --- Package was generated through rust2rpm, simplifying the review considerably. - Conforms to packaging guidelines (rust2rpm generated spec) - license correct and valid - only sources installed ! More then 80 symbols in Summary, otherwise OK. 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 1709029] Review Request: peek - Animated GIF screen recorder with an easy to use interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1709029 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/peek -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1711611] Review Request: pdfarranger - PDF file merging, rearranging, and splitting. Maintained fork of pdfshuffler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1711611 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: pdfarranger |python-pdfarranger - PDF|- PDF file merging, |file merging, rearranging, |rearranging, and splitting. |and splitting. Maintained |Maintained fork of |fork of pdfshuffler |pdfshuffler -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1706540] Review Request: xxkb - A keyboard layout indicator and switcher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1706540 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xxkb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1713315] Review Request: perl-AnyEvent-HTTP-Server - AnyEvent HTTP/1.1 Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1713315 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ppi...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1702720] Review Request: frr - routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1702720 Martin Osvald changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(mruprich@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #4 from Martin Osvald --- The below needs to be fixed: - the first three are related, more info in rpmlint section, the files there looks to be better candidate for -devel subpackage than -contrib as adding files only into /usr/share/doc even not documentation at all (scripts, relocatable files used during compilation (.o), and unstripped DSOs): [!] /usr/share/doc/frr-contrib/tools contains object/relocatable files [!] /usr/share/doc/frr-contrib/tools/.libs contains shared object files/DSOs [!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 122880 bytes in 15 files. /usr/share/doc/frr-contrib consumes 912K [!] userdel && groupdel in %pre Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: === - Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if package has .info files. Note: Texinfo .info file(s) in frr See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_texinfo - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/mosvald/Work/redhat/src/pkg-review/frr/review-frr/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ - systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in frr See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets = MUST items = C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Expat License", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "ISC License GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "ISC License", "GPL (v3 or later)", "ISC License GPL (v2 or later)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "ISC License BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "BSD (unspecified)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "GNU General Public License", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)", "GPL (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "Expat License GPL (v2 or later)". 395 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mosvald/Work/redhat/src/pkg- review/frr/review-frr/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/frr/modules, /usr/lib/frr, /usr/share/yang [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/logrotate.d, /usr/lib/frr, /usr/share/yang, /usr/lib64/frr/modules [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. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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
[Bug 1703386] Review Request: xorg-x11-drv-armada - X.org graphics driver for KMS based systems with pluggable GPU backend
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1703386 --- Comment #2 from Diego --- I've rebuilt libetnaviv, libdrm-armada and xorg-x11-drv-armada for aarch32 and installed this /etc/xorg.conf file: http://git.arm.linux.org.uk/cgit/xf86-video-armada.git/tree/conf/xorg-sample.conf?h=unstable-devel It has rough edges, but Xorg starts correctly on a Boundary Devices Nitrogen6x i.MX6Q 1GB (GC2000), so the package is doing what it is supposed to do. Thank you for your 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 1717652] Review Request: prusa-slicer - G-code generator for 3D printers (RepRap, Makerbot, Ultimaker etc.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1717652 --- Comment #8 from Miro Hrončok --- BTW The appdata screenshot would appreciate some love https://www.prusa3d.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/image.jpg -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1717652] Review Request: prusa-slicer - G-code generator for 3D printers (RepRap, Makerbot, Ultimaker etc.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1717652 --- Comment #7 from Miro Hrončok --- (In reply to Jason Tibbitts from comment #5) > Thanks. Some responses: > > I can't imagine that 4.5MB of data in /usr/share/PrusaSlicer is considered > large, given what I see in my /usr/share currently. It's about 2MB icons > (about 40% of which is images of the prusa printers) and 2MB translations. > Doesn't seem really worth it to try and split it out when it wouldn't save > anything for any spin or end user system, but if more translations pile in > then it might be worth it. Ack. > I mentioned in the initial message that you may see the strange-permissions > thing if running rpmlint directly on the srpm I provided. My umask is 0770 > (because we use the posix ACL schema here where every user has their own > group) and "fedpkg srpm" creates the source package using the on-disk > permissions, which is arguably a bug but not one that matters except that > rpmlint complains for whatever reason. The packages generated from the > buildsystem won't have that issue. I've missed that in the original message. Ack. > And yes, the summary is exactly what upstream is currently using, both on > their github repo and in the Debian packaging metadata they maintain (hidden > in the "debian" branch). I'm not sure what text would be better, though > it's pretty hilarious that it doesn't explicitly mention Prusa. Just saying > "G-code generator optimized for Prusa printers" would work, I guess, but > still assumes you know what G-code means. Maybe copying the cura package > and using "3D printer control software optimized for Prusa printers" would > be OK. I think I'll go with that. Does it control the printer already? If not, what about: 3D printing slicer optimized for Prusa printers -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1717652] Review Request: prusa-slicer - G-code generator for 3D printers (RepRap, Makerbot, Ultimaker etc.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1717652 --- Comment #6 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/prusa-slicer -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1715379] Review Request: adobe-source-han-mono-fonts - Adobe OpenType monospaced font for mixed Latin and CJK text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1715379 Akira TAGOH changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2019-06-06 06:11:13 --- Comment #10 from Akira TAGOH --- https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1280793 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-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 1717188] Review Request: go-rpm-macros - rpm automation to simplify the creation of Go packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1717188 --- Comment #7 from Nicolas Mailhot --- Thanks for the review! I agree changes should be tested, preferably by several people. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
