[Bug 1747622] Review Request: golang-github-cmd - Go library wrapper around os/exec.Cmd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747622 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-cmd-1.0.5-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2019-57802931dd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1748678] Review Request: usbtop - Utility to show USB bandwidth
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748678 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- usbtop-1.0-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2019-5390b38041 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1747626] Review Request: golang-github-labbsr0x-goh - Go library for writing simple webhooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747626 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-labbsr0x-goh-0-0.1.20190905git6360eb5.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2019-275eb7cc5d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1748059] Review Request: python-license-expression - Library to parse, compare, simplify and normalize license expressions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748059 --- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-license-expression -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1749094] Review Request: polybar - A fast and easy-to-use status bar for tiling WM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749094 --- Comment #4 from Franco Comida --- Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/fcomida/polybar/fedora-30-x86_64/01028544-polybar/polybar.spec SRPMS URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/fcomida/polybar/fedora-30-x86_64/01028544-polybar/polybar-3.4.0-1.fc30.src.rpm Sorry I deleted the old build. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1748059] Review Request: python-license-expression - Library to parse, compare, simplify and normalize license expressions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748059 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- Thanks. 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1749094] Review Request: polybar - A fast and easy-to-use status bar for tiling WM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749094 --- Comment #3 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- Please post direct links; the ones in the original post are 404. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1747627] Review Request: golang-github-labbsr0x-bindman-dns-webhook - Go library for Bindman DNS Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747627 --- Comment #3 from Carl George --- rawhide: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-402666739d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1747626] Review Request: golang-github-labbsr0x-goh - Go library for writing simple webhooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747626 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-275eb7cc5d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-275eb7cc5d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1747626] Review Request: golang-github-labbsr0x-goh - Go library for writing simple webhooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747626 --- Comment #3 from Carl George --- rawhide: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-f39d0b6e61 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1747622] Review Request: golang-github-cmd - Go library wrapper around os/exec.Cmd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747622 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-57802931dd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-57802931dd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1748678] Review Request: usbtop - Utility to show USB bandwidth
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748678 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-5390b38041 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-5390b38041 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1748678] Review Request: usbtop - Utility to show USB bandwidth
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748678 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-a4f86875db has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-a4f86875db -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1747811] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-appindicator - AppIndicator/KStatusNotifierItem support for GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747811 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2019-b15221e733 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-b15221e733 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1747622] Review Request: golang-github-cmd - Go library wrapper around os/exec.Cmd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747622 --- Comment #7 from Carl George --- rawhide: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-47dcca50d0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1748678] Review Request: usbtop - Utility to show USB bandwidth
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748678 --- Comment #7 from Carl George --- rawhide: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-c030d7ddae -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1747811] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-appindicator - AppIndicator/KStatusNotifierItem support for GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747811 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-925cbcb6fe has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-925cbcb6fe -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1747811] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-appindicator - AppIndicator/KStatusNotifierItem support for GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747811 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-0afb6633c8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-0afb6633c8 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1747811] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-appindicator - AppIndicator/KStatusNotifierItem support for GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747811 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-8c088914dd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-8c088914dd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1747627] Review Request: golang-github-labbsr0x-bindman-dns-webhook - Go library for Bindman DNS Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747627 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-labbsr0x-bindman-dns-webhook -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1747811] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-appindicator - AppIndicator/KStatusNotifierItem support for GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747811 --- Comment #14 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-shell-extension-appindicator -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1747626] Review Request: golang-github-labbsr0x-goh - Go library for writing simple webhooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747626 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-labbsr0x-goh -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1747811] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-appindicator - AppIndicator/KStatusNotifierItem support for GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747811 --- Comment #13 from Artem --- https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/gnome-shell-extension-appindicator/fedora-30-x86_64/01028684-gnome-shell-extension-appindicator/gnome-shell-extension-appindicator.spec https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/gnome-shell-extension-appindicator/fedora-30-x86_64/01028684-gnome-shell-extension-appindicator/gnome-shell-extension-appindicator-30-7.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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1747811] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-appindicator - AppIndicator/KStatusNotifierItem support for GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747811 Vitaly Zaitsev changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Vitaly Zaitsev --- LGTM now. 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1747811] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-appindicator - AppIndicator/KStatusNotifierItem support for GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747811
--- Comment #11 from Vitaly Zaitsev ---
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", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)". 10
files have unknown license.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: gnome-shell-extension-appindicator-30-6.fc32.noarch.rpm
gnome-shell-extension-appindicator-30-6.fc32.src.rpm
gnome-shell-extension-appindicator.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l
en_US systray ->
[Bug 1747811] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-appindicator - AppIndicator/KStatusNotifierItem support for GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747811 Vitaly Zaitsev changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #10 from Vitaly Zaitsev --- > Maybe better delete them at all or made a separate package... Python 2 is not allowed for Rawhide. This script must be removed then. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1748938] Review Request: python-convertdate - A Python module to convert date formats and calculating holidays
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748938 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-1fa0abbcf8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-1fa0abbcf8 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1747811] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-appindicator - AppIndicator/KStatusNotifierItem support for GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747811 --- Comment #9 from Artem --- I found that this legacy test tools not working with python3 and as for python2 they requires a tons of old KDE4 libs and packages and requires at least to install: - PyQt4 - PyKDE4 Maybe better delete them at all or made a separate 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1747811] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-appindicator - AppIndicator/KStatusNotifierItem support for GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747811 --- Comment #8 from Artem --- (In reply to Vitaly Zaitsev from comment #7) 1. Done 2. TODO 3. Done 4. Done 5. TODO https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/gnome-shell-extension-appindicator/fedora-30-x86_64/01028680-gnome-shell-extension-appindicator/gnome-shell-extension-appindicator.spec https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/gnome-shell-extension-appindicator/fedora-30-x86_64/01028680-gnome-shell-extension-appindicator/gnome-shell-extension-appindicator-30-6.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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1747811] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-appindicator - AppIndicator/KStatusNotifierItem support for GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747811
Vitaly Zaitsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vit...@easycoding.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vit...@easycoding.org
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #7 from Vitaly Zaitsev ---
I will review this package.
1. Ask upstream to add license files.
2. Python 2 is deprecated and must not be used in Rawhide. Please ask upstream
to port scripts to Python 3 or do it manually and then send PR to upstream.
3. Patches should be applied in %prep.
4. Use sed -i 's!/bin/env python2!%{__python3}!' indicator-test-tool/ksni.py
instead of hardcoding path.
5. I think it will be better to use /usr/bin/install with explicitly set chmod
instead of just copying files to destination directory.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1747648] Review Request: nohang - Highly configurable OOM prevention daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747648 --- Comment #5 from Artem --- https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/nohang/fedora-30-x86_64/01028658-nohang/nohang.spec https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/nohang/fedora-30-x86_64/01028658-nohang/nohang-0.1-8.20190905git6db1833.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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1749383] Review Request: mesos - Apache Mesos Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749383 Simone Caronni changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1749383] Review Request: mesos - Apache Mesos Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749383 Simone Caronni changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||negativ...@gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Simone Caronni --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #3) > The package is not actually orphaned, but it was retired from fedora 30+. > > I see you're not yet a member of the "packager" group in fedora, so you'll > also need to find a sponsor before you can actually build any packages. I will sponsor Javi after the review. I'm also the person who retired the package after getting no maintainers upfront when I stopped using 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1748942] Review Request: xde-menu - Menu system for the X Desktop Environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748942 --- Comment #5 from Artem --- https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/xde-menu/fedora-30-x86_64/01028651-xde-menu/xde-menu.spec https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/xde-menu/fedora-30-x86_64/01028651-xde-menu/xde-menu-0.11-2.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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1748942] Review Request: xde-menu - Menu system for the X Desktop Environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748942 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko --- Just drop .la 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1741575] Review Request: mingw-libunistring - MinGW port of GNU Unicode string library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741575 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-libunistring -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1749383] Review Request: mesos - Apache Mesos Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749383 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||decatho...@gmail.com Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini --- The package is not actually orphaned, but it was retired from fedora 30+. I see you're not yet a member of the "packager" group in fedora, so you'll also need to find a sponsor before you can actually build any packages. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1749383] Review Request: mesos - Apache Mesos Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749383 --- Comment #2 from Javi Roman --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #1) > You might want to mention that this package already existed in fedora but > you want to un-retire it for fedora 30 and later (I guess). Your are right, this package is orphaned, I would like reboot this package. According with https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers I have created this new review. Please, let me know whether this is a wrong procedure. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1749383] Review Request: mesos - Apache Mesos Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749383 --- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini --- You might want to mention that this package already existed in fedora but you want to un-retire it for fedora 30 and later (I guess). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1748678] Review Request: usbtop - Utility to show USB bandwidth
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748678 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/usbtop -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1747811] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-appindicator - AppIndicator/KStatusNotifierItem support for GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747811 --- Comment #6 from Artem --- # FIXME You can use gnome-tweak-tool (additional package) or run in terminal: ā†’ You can use gnome-tweaks (additional package) or run in terminal: gnome-tweak-tool - is legacy name. I will fix this in next build before import. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1749383] Review Request: mesos - Apache Mesos Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749383 Javi Roman changed: What|Removed |Added Version|rawhide |30 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1748942] Review Request: xde-menu - Menu system for the X Desktop Environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748942 --- Comment #3 from Artem --- WIP. Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: === - Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) Note: xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-2bwm.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-adwm.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde- menu/modules/xde-menu-aewm++.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde- menu/modules/xde-menu-aewm.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde- menu-afterstep.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu- awesome.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-blackbox.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-bspwm.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-ctwm.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde- menu/modules/xde-menu-cwm.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde- menu-dtwm.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-dwm.la xde- menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-echinus.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-etwm.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde- menu/modules/xde-menu-ewmh.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde- menu-fluxbox.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-flwm.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-fvwm.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-glasswm.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-goomwwm.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-herbstluftwm.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-i3.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde- menu/modules/xde-menu-icewm.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde- menu/modules/xde-menu-jwm.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde- menu-larswm.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-matwm2.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-metacity.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-mvwm.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde- menu/modules/xde-menu-mwm.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde- menu-openbox.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu- openboxold.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-pekwm.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-perlpanel.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-spectrwm.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-twm.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde- menu/modules/xde-menu-uwm.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde- menu-vtwm.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-waimea.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-wind.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-wm2.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde- menu/modules/xde-menu-wmaker.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde- menu/modules/xde-menu-wmakerold.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde- menu/modules/xde-menu-wmii.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde- menu-wmx.la xde-menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-xdwm.la xde- menu : /usr/lib64/xde-menu/modules/xde-menu-yeahwm.la See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#packaging-static-libraries = MUST items = C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [ ]: 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]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3) (with incorrect FSF address)". 31 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /mnt/data-linux/1748942-xde-menu/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/X11/app- defaults(libXt) [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and
[Bug 1748678] Review Request: usbtop - Utility to show USB bandwidth
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748678 Carl George changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST --- Comment #5 from Carl George --- Thanks Neal. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1747622] Review Request: golang-github-cmd - Go library wrapper around os/exec.Cmd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747622 --- Comment #6 from Carl George --- Works for me, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. Perhaps by that time if it is a bug in Go itself it will have been resolved. Thanks Elliott! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1749383] New: Review Request: mesos - Apache Mesos Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749383 Bug ID: 1749383 Summary: Review Request: mesos - Apache Mesos Cluster Manager Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jroman.espi...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/jromanes/rpms/mesos/blob/f30/f/mesos.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/javiroman/mesos-rpm/raw/master/mesos-1.8.1-1.fc30.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37480911 Description: Apache Mesos is a cluster manager that provides efficient resource isolation and sharing across distributed applications, or frameworks. It can run Hadoop, MPI, Hypertable, Spark, and other applications on a dynamically shared pool of nodes. Fedora Account System Username: jromanes -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1741587] Review Request: mingw-brotli - MinGW port of Lossless compression algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741587 --- Comment #2 from Fabiano FidĆŖncio --- Both spec and srpm files have been updated according to the reviewer's comments. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1748967] Review Request: python-satyr - Python bindings for satyr.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748967 --- Comment #6 from Martin Kutlak --- > Itā€™s not like linking to prior art will make it more okay. It simply is not > a dictionary word. I just wanted to point out that it is not meant to be a word from a dictionary. It is ĀµReport not Āµ-Report, nor Āµ Report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1741582] Review Request: mingw-libpsl - MinGW port of C library for the Publix Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741582 --- Comment #4 from Fabiano FidĆŖncio --- Both spec and srpm have been updated according to the reviewer comments. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1748938] Review Request: python-convertdate - A Python module to convert date formats and calculating holidays
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748938 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-convertdate -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1726400] Review Request: python-text-unidecode - A Python module for handling non-Roman text data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1726400 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- python-text-unidecode-1.3-1.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-2019-1d6457bcea -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1748059] Review Request: python-license-expression - Library to parse, compare, simplify and normalize license expressions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748059 --- Comment #6 from Carmen Bianca Bakker --- Updated the spec and SRPM to include the removal of the egg-info and PKG-INFO. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1749150] Review Request: rust-dutree - Command line tool to analyze disk usage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749150
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 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* GNU General Public
License". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/tim/1749150-rust-dutree/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.
[x]: 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 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 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in dutree ,
rust-dutree-devel , rust-dutree+default-devel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should
[Bug 1748471] Review Request: xtensor-python - Python bindings for xtensor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748471 --- Comment #3 from serge_sans_paille --- @Elliott: spec file description + URL updated as suggested And I second Miro, this is not a Python package, it's a header-only C++ package. New SRPM URL: SRPM URL: https://sergesanspaille.fedorapeople.org/xtensor-python-0.23.1-0.fc32.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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1748938] Review Request: python-convertdate - A Python module to convert date formats and calculating holidays
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748938 --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for your input. (In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #1) > - Why do you disable the dependency generator? Is it broken? Because there is a naming issue (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748948). (In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #1) > - Summary should not start with "A" Fixed (In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #1) > - The Makefile and tox.ini state GPLv3, but link MIT. This seems like an > accident that should be reported upstream. The package doesn't contains those files. Thus I thought that it would not be an issue. Anyway, it should be fixed by upstream -> https://github.com/fitnr/convertdate/pull/19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1748942] Review Request: xde-menu - Menu system for the X Desktop Environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748942 --- Comment #2 from Artem --- https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/xde-menu/fedora-30-x86_64/01028557-xde-menu/xde-menu.spec https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/xde-menu/fedora-30-x86_64/01028557-xde-menu/xde-menu-0.11-1.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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1748967] Review Request: python-satyr - Python bindings for satyr.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748967 --- Comment #5 from Ernestas Kulik --- (In reply to Martin Kutlak from comment #4) > > python-satyr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US microreports -> > > micro reports, micro-reports, misreports > > python-satyr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Microreports -> > > Micro reports, Micro-reports, Misreports > > https://abrt.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ureport.html Itā€™s not like linking to prior art will make it more okay. It simply is not a dictionary word. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1749094] Review Request: polybar - A fast and easy-to-use status bar for tiling WM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749094 --- Comment #2 from Franco Comida --- Thanks for helping me. I think I addressed all issues, I patched "lib/xpp/CMakeLists.txt" for requiring Python 3 and it does now build with it, fixed urls, summary and description. Still need to delete bundled jsoncpp. You can find all this changes on my COPR as before. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1748059] Review Request: python-license-expression - Library to parse, compare, simplify and normalize license expressions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748059
--- Comment #5 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
> # Remove bundled egg-info
> rm -rf %{pypi_name}.egg-info
comes from pyp2rpm when you generate a spec. Usually PKG-INFO is in there so it
gets deleted as well. I'm not sure why pyp2rpm adds this, when it's not in the
guidelines, but I guess it does help avoid installing it (without proper
rebuild) accidentally.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1743048] Review Request: golang-github-niklasfasching-org - Org mode parser with html & pretty printed org rendering
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1743048 --- Comment #4 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- I added a go-org subpackage for the binary. Same URLs as before. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1748059] Review Request: python-license-expression - Library to parse, compare, simplify and normalize license expressions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748059 --- Comment #4 from Carmen Bianca Bakker --- Ah, I was looking at the wrong directory. The file is indeed there, sorry. I don't believe other Fedora Python packages remove these files, though? I mean, it'd be trivial to do this, but if it should be done, I'd expect to see a note in the Python packaging guidelines given how common these files would be. I checked an arbitrary package like python-flask to be sure, and Flask's tarball also has these files, but the specfile doesn't remove them. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1749283] Review Request: golang-github-bep-tmc - Basic map[string]interface{} JSON roundtrip with custom adapters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749283
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
|golang-github-bep-tmc - |golang-github-bep-tmc -
|Provides basic roundtrip|Basic
|JSON etc. encoding/decoding |map[string]interface{} JSON
|of a map[string]interface{} |roundtrip with custom
|with custom type adapters |adapters
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1744238] Review Request: golang-github-frankban-quicktest - Quick helpers for testing Go applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744238
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1749283
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749283
[Bug 1749283] Review Request: golang-github-bep-tmc - Provides basic roundtrip
JSON etc. encoding/decoding of a map[string]interface{} with custom type
adapters
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1749283] New: Review Request: golang-github-bep-tmc - Provides basic roundtrip JSON etc. encoding/decoding of a map[string]interface{} with custom type adapters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749283
Bug ID: 1749283
Summary: Review Request: golang-github-bep-tmc - Provides basic
roundtrip JSON etc. encoding/decoding of a
map[string]interface{} with custom type adapters
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//golang-github-bep-tmc.spec
SRPM URL:
https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//golang-github-bep-tmc-0.5.0-1.fc30.src.rpm
Description:
Provides basic roundtrip JSON etc. encoding/decoding of a
map[string]interface{} with custom type adapters.
%gopkg
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1749283] Review Request: golang-github-bep-tmc - Provides basic roundtrip JSON etc. encoding/decoding of a map[string]interface{} with custom type adapters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749283 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1742352 Depends On||1744238 ||(golang-github-frankban-qui ||cktest) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1742352 [Bug 1742352] hugo-0.58.0 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744238 [Bug 1744238] Review Request: golang-github-frankban-quicktest - Quick helpers for testing Go applications -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1748967] Review Request: python-satyr - Python bindings for satyr.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748967
--- Comment #4 from Martin Kutlak ---
> python-satyr.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Python binding for satyr.
Fixed.
> python-satyr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US microreports ->
> micro reports, micro-reports, misreports
> python-satyr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Microreports ->
> Micro reports, Micro-reports, Misreports
https://abrt.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ureport.html
> Error checking signature of python-satyr-0.26-2.fc32.src.rpm:
> python-satyr-0.26-2.fc32.src.rpm: digests SIGNATURES NOT OK
> python-satyr.src: E: invalid-spec-name
Fixed the name of the spec file.
> python-satyr.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
> https://github.com/abrt/satyr/archive/0.26/satyr-0.26.tar.xz HTTP Error 404:
> Not Found
Fixed the path to the source.
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
> I would suggest:
>
> - make %{?_smp_mflags}
> + %make_build
>
> - make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
> + %make_install
Changed.
Updated spec,
COPR build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mkutlak/a-el8/build/1028520/
Spec URL:
https://mkutlak.fedorapeople.org/pkg_review/python-satyr/python-satyr.spec
SRPM URL:
https://mkutlak.fedorapeople.org/pkg_review/python-satyr/python-satyr-0.26-2.fc32.src.rpm
SRPM URL:
https://mkutlak.fedorapeople.org/pkg_review/python-satyr/python-satyr-0.26-2.el8.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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1748059] Review Request: python-license-expression - Library to parse, compare, simplify and normalize license expressions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748059 --- Comment #3 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- (In reply to Carmen Bianca Bakker from comment #2) > > - You should delete PKG-INFO and src/license_expression.egg-info in %prep. > > These files don't exist in the source tarball, and they aren't included > in the final RPM either. I'm not sure about this step. > They definitely do: $ tar tf license-expression-0.999.tar.gz | grep -i info license-expression-0.999/src/license_expression.egg-info/ license-expression-0.999/src/license_expression.egg-info/SOURCES.txt license-expression-0.999/PKG-INFO but it's true that PKG-INFO doesn't end up in the RPM (I think; there's a file with the same name somewhere else 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1718540] Review Request: davs2 - An open-source decoder of AVS2-P2/IEEE1857.4 video coding standard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1718540 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com --- Comment #9 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- Try the le...@lists.fedoraproject.org mailing list. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1748059] Review Request: python-license-expression - Library to parse, compare, simplify and normalize license expressions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748059
--- Comment #2 from Carmen Bianca Bakker ---
> - You should delete PKG-INFO and src/license_expression.egg-info in %prep.
These files don't exist in the source tarball, and they aren't included
in the final RPM either. I'm not sure about this step.
> - Passing %{pypi_name} to %pypi_source is unnecessary.
> - `irc-notify.py` is GPLv2+, but not installed. Please add a note above the
> License so others aren't confused by it.
> - `Requires: %{py3_dist boolean.py}` is unnecessary and redundant with
> automatic
> Provides/Requires.
Done x3. Spec and SRPM updated. 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1748938] Review Request: python-convertdate - A Python module to convert date formats and calculating holidays
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748938 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- OK, it looks like it's because of bug 1748948. Please add a comment about it then. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1662777] Review Request: python-pytest-randomly - Pytest plugin to randomly order tests and control random.seed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1662777 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- You should set PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTECODE=1 when running tests so that you don't get pytest bytecode in your rpms. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1748938] Review Request: python-convertdate - A Python module to convert date formats and calculating holidays
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748938
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
- Why do you disable the dependency generator? Is it broken?
- Summary should not start with "A"
- The Makefile and tox.ini state GPLv3, but link MIT. This seems like an
accident that should be reported upstream.
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", "GNU General Public
License (v3.0)". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/elliott/rpmbuild/review/1748938-python-
convertdate/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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.
[?]: 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.
[!]: 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]: 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 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]: 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
[Bug 1747627] Review Request: golang-github-labbsr0x-bindman-dns-webhook - Go library for Bindman DNS Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747627
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat
License". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in
1747627-golang-github-labbsr0x-bindman-dns-webhook/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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.
[?]: 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.
[?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
= 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]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq,
[Bug 1748471] Review Request: xtensor-python - Python bindings for xtensor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748471 --- Comment #2 from Miro HronĨok --- Note that this is not a Python 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1747626] Review Request: golang-github-labbsr0x-goh - Go library for writing simple webhooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747626
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat
License". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in 1747626-golang-github-labbsr0x-goh/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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.
[?]: 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.
[?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
= 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]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[Bug 1748967] Review Request: python-satyr - Python bindings for satyr.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748967
--- Comment #3 from Ernestas Kulik ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
Note: satyr.spec should be python-satyr.spec
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_spec_file_naming
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: the library is only used for the bindings, not development.
[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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
Note: Could not download Source0:
[Bug 1743847] Review Request: golang-github-azure-amqp-common - Common types and interfaces for use in Service Bus and Event Hubs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1743847
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
Summary is a bit long; you can drop 'use in' to make it under 79.
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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat
License". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in 1743847-golang-github-azure-amqp-common/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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.
[?]: 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
= 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]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if
[Bug 1744287] Review Request: golang-mongodb-mongo-driver - Go driver for MongoDB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744287
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal)
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
The license for this is fine, but the license for MongoDB was determined to not
be Free Software and it was removed. I believe this does not link to it, but
communicates via socket like PostgreSQL or MariaDB. But I'm tagging in legal@
just to be sure that this package is okay to include.
This is approved so long as legal is fine with it.
Please add a comment for why some tests are skipped.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
= 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No
copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "Apache License (v2.0)", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified"
License", "ISC License", "Expat License", "*No copyright* BSD 2-clause
"Simplified" License". 1703 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
1744287-golang-mongodb-mongo-driver/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.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
Note: Macros in: golang-mongodb-mongo-driver (description)
[-]: 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.
[?]: 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.
[?]: 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 122880 bytes in 8 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]: 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,
[Bug 1726400] Review Request: python-text-unidecode - A Python module for handling non-Roman text data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1726400 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-1d6457bcea has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-1d6457bcea -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1744388] Review Request: golang-gocloud - Library and tools for open cloud development in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744388 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- This fails to build: gocloud.dev/pubsub/awssnssqs --- FAIL: TestOpenTopicFromURL (0.00s) awssnssqs_test.go:436: awssns://arn:aws:service:region:accountid:resourceType/resourcePath: got error open pubsub.Topic: parse awssns://arn:aws:service:region:accountid:resourceType/resourcePath: invalid port ":resourceType" after host, want error false awssnssqs_test.go:436: awssns://arn:aws:service:region:accountid:resourceType/resourcePath?region=us-east-2: got error open pubsub.Topic: parse awssns://arn:aws:service:region:accountid:resourceType/resourcePath?region=us-east-2: invalid port ":resourceType" after host, want error false FAIL exit status 1 FAILgocloud.dev/pubsub/awssnssqs0.890s It looks like it's having issues with Go's new more stringent port parsing. See upstream report: https://github.com/google/go-cloud/issues/2647 which you should be able to pull a patch for -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1645172] Review Request: firejail - Linux namespaces sandbox program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645172 Ondrej Dubaj changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-09-05 06:26:03 --- Comment #30 from Ondrej Dubaj --- Yes, sorry for not closing it sooner -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
