[Bug 1787919] Review Request: marker - GTK 3 markdown editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787919 --- Comment #2 from Artem --- > - Push for upstream to put their binaries in lib/lib64 rather than share: > > marker.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share > /usr/share/com.github.fabiocolacio.marker/extensions/libscroll-extension.so Yep. Already filed a bug https://github.com/fabiocolacio/Marker/issues/293 Thank you for 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 1787366] Review Request: php-psr-http-server-middleware - Common interface for HTTP server-side middleware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787366 --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet --- Thanks for the review! SCL requests https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/21190 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/21191 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/21192 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1576792] Review Request: python3-webthing - HTTP Web Thing implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576792 --- Comment #16 from Fabian Affolter --- I will perform the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1576792] Review Request: python3-webthing - HTTP Web Thing implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576792 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@fabian-affolter.ch 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 1787578] Review Request: vokoscreenNG - User friendly Open Source screencaster
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787578 --- Comment #3 from Artem --- Thank you for review! Pushed in F30+. Seems like Bodhi lags at this moment. F31: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-a489a2436a F30: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-aa27dbce21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 810049] Review Request: netbeans-ide - Netbeans Integrated Development Environment (IDE)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810049 --- Comment #70 from Alisha Jonwal --- I like this post so much and I will share this post with my all friends because all the details are in this post is brilliant. http://www.hotgurgaoncallgirls.com/ http://www.thegurgaoncallgirls.com/ http://www.thegurgaoncallgirls.com/callgirlsinsector10gurgaon.php -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 810049] Review Request: netbeans-ide - Netbeans Integrated Development Environment (IDE)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810049 --- Comment #69 from Alisha Jonwal --- All the details are in this post is excellent and there is some more brilliant and unique details are mention in this post. https://www.kavya-arora.in/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 810049] Review Request: netbeans-ide - Netbeans Integrated Development Environment (IDE)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810049 --- Comment #68 from Alisha Jonwal --- Details are in this post is excellent and very interesting and I would like to share this post with my all friends. http://www.dlfgurgaoncallgirls.com/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 810049] Review Request: netbeans-ide - Netbeans Integrated Development Environment (IDE)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810049 Alisha Jonwal changed: What|Removed |Added CC||alishajonwal5...@gmail.com --- Comment #67 from Alisha Jonwal --- This is a brilliant informative post and great work is done in this post. http://www.hifimodelescortsgurgaon.com/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1787447] Review Request: python-sphinx-math-dollar - Sphinx extension to enable LaTeX math with $$
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787447 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- 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 1788782] Review Request: R-broom - Convert Statistical Analysis Objects into Tidy Tibbles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1788782 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: b'R-broom' |Review Request: R-broom - |- b'Convert Statistical |Convert Statistical |Analysis Objects into Tidy |Analysis Objects into Tidy |Tibbles'|Tibbles Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=40264163 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1788782] New: Review Request: b'R-broom' - b'Convert Statistical Analysis Objects into Tidy Tibbles'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1788782 Bug ID: 1788782 Summary: Review Request: b'R-broom' - b'Convert Statistical Analysis Objects into Tidy Tibbles' Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: quantum.anal...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-broom.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-broom-0.5.3-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: b'Summarizes key information about statistical objects in tidy tibbles. This\nmakes it easy to report results, create plots and consistently work with large\nnumbers of models at once. Broom provides three verbs that each provide\ndifferent types of information about a model. tidy() summarizes information\nabout model components such as coefficients of a regression. glance() reports\ninformation about an entire model, such as goodness of fit measures like AIC\nand BIC. augment() adds information about individual observations to a dataset,\nsuch as fitted values or influence measures.' -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1576792] Review Request: python3-webthing - HTTP Web Thing implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576792 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(pbrobinson@gmail. | |com)| --- Comment #15 from Peter Robinson --- (In reply to Fabian Affolter from comment #14) > Peter, do you still want to go on with the review? > > I would like to have this package in Fedora. I'm happy to continue if someone will do an official review, also quite happy to have someone take it over or co-maintain it once the review is complete. I'd not done any updates because there was no official reviewer assigned and everything was just drive by 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 1787271] Review Request: golang-github-ssgelm-cookiejarparser - Parses a curl cookiejar file into a Go http.CookieJar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787271 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-2298a17c5b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-2298a17c5b -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1787271] Review Request: golang-github-ssgelm-cookiejarparser - Parses a curl cookiejar file into a Go http.CookieJar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787271 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-c3cf0defbf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c3cf0defbf -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1788178] Review Request: perl-Test-Regexp-Pattern - Test Regexp::Pattern patterns
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1788178
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Use
%build
perl Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor NO_PACKLIST=1 NO_PERLLOCAL=1
%{make_build}
%install
%{make_install}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://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 1788327] Review Request: gl4es - GL4ES is a OpenGL 2.1/1.5 to GL ES 2.0/1.1 translation library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1788327
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Don't repeat the name of the package in the Summary:
Summary:OpenGL 2.1/1.5 to GL ES 2.0/1.1 translation library
- Requires: %{name} = %{version} → Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
- Remove executable bits in %prep and send a patch upstream:
gl4es.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gl4es/CHANGELOG.md
gl4es.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gl4es/MEDIA.md
gl4es.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gl4es/README.md
gl4es.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/gl4es/USAGE.md
- Own this directory:
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/gl4es
- Remove rpath:
gl4es.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/gl4es/libGL.so.1
['/builddir/build/BUILD/gl4es-2f61f71b0e75ee3e67da01d2eb1d949d1db8f5d3/build/lib',
'/opt/vc/lib']
%cmake .. \
-DBCMHOST=1 -DNOEGL=1 -DNOX11=1 -DDEFAULT_ES=2 -DUSE_CLOCK=ON
-DCMAKE_SKIP_BUILD_RPATH=TRUE
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[!]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Note: See rpmlint output
[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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "Khronos License",
"SGI Free Software License B (v2.0)", "GNU Lesser General Public
License (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* SGI Free Software License B".
207 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/gl4es/review-gl4es/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/gl4es
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make
[Bug 1788270] Review Request: glshim - OpenGL 1.x driver shim for OpenGL ES devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1788270
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Seems the library install dir is defined as:
set(LIB_INSTALL_DIR lib/${CMAKE_LIBRARY_ARCHITECTURE}/glshim)
You need to overwrite this by patching:
sed -i s,lib/\${CMAKE_LIBRARY_ARCHITECTURE}/glshim,%{_libdir}/%{name},
CMakeLists.txt
- Simplify/fix the Source:
Source0:%{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- Missing isa in Requires:
%package devel
Summary:Development files for GLUES
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
- Test script is written in Python 2. Disregard them for now but ask upstream
to convert to Python 3.
- Own this directory:
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/glshim
- In order to avoid unintentional SONAME bump, we do not recommend globiing te
major SONAME version, be more specific instead:
%{_libdir}/%{name}/libGL.so.1*
==
Name: glshim
Version:0.42
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:OpenGL 1.x driver shim for OpenGL ES devices
License:MIT
URL:https://github.com/lunixbochs/glshim
Source0:%{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildRequires: cmake gcc-c++
BuildRequires: libX11-devel
# BuildRequires: python3-blessings
# BuildRequires: python3-jinja2
%description
This is a shim providing OpenGL 1.x functionality to OpenGL ES
accelerated cards.
%package devel
Summary:Development files for GLUES
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
%description devel
%summary.
%prep
%autosetup
sed -i s,python,%{__python3}, test/run
sed -i s,lib/\${CMAKE_LIBRARY_ARCHITECTURE}/glshim,%{_libdir}/%{name},
CMakeLists.txt
%build
mkdir build
pushd build
%cmake ..
popd
%make_build -C build
%install
%make_install -C build
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_includedir}/%{name}
cp -pr include/* %{buildroot}%{_includedir}/%{name}
%files
%license LICENSE
%doc README.md
%dir %{_libdir}/%{name}
%{_libdir}/%{name}/libGL.so.1*
%files devel
%license LICENSE
%{_libdir}/%{name}/lib*.so
%{_includedir}/%{name}/
%changelog
* Sun Jan 05 2020 Raphael Groner - 0.42-1
- Initial package
==
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "Khronos License",
"SGI Free Software License B (v2.0)", "GNU Lesser General Public
License (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* SGI Free Software License B",
"BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 160 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/glshim/review-glshim/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/glshim
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains
[Bug 1787618] Review Request: libzia - Platform abstraction layer for the tucnak package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787618
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- There are obsolete m4 macros in the package, please patch them out and
notify upstream:
AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
--
AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: libzia-4.18/configure.ac:2
AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libzia-4.18/configure.ac:14
===
diff -up libzia-4.18/configure.ac.orig libzia-4.18/configure.ac
--- libzia-4.18/configure.ac.orig 2019-09-04 08:18:30.0 +0200
+++ libzia-4.18/configure.ac2020-01-08 01:22:07.039900721 +0100
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
AC_INIT(libzia, 4.18)
-AM_CONFIG_HEADER(config.h)
+AC_CONFIG_HEADERS(config.h)
AC_CONFIG_SRCDIR(src/eprintf.c)
AC_CANONICAL_TARGET
AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE
@@ -11,8 +11,7 @@ fi
if test -f "/etc/SuSE-release"; then
echo "TIP: If following test fails, try to run: yast -i gcc"
fi
-AC_PROG_LIBTOOL
-#LT_INIT([dlopen])
+LT_INIT([dlopen])
AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR([m4])
dnl Determine default prefix
===
- Patch this obsolete FSF address and notify upstream:
libzia-devel.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/include/libzia/regex_.h
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "GPL (v2)", "GNU
Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "GNU Lesser General
Public License (v2 or later)", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)
GNU General Public License (v2)", "FSF Unlimited License (with
Retention)", "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF address) GNU Lesser General
Public License (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2) (with incorrect FSF
address)", "*No copyright* Public domain". 55 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/libzia/review-libzia/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or
[Bug 1784590] Review Request: quarter - Lightweight glue library between Coin and Qt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1784590 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-248a7ebe2b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-248a7ebe2b -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1788198] Review Request: non-ntk - A fork of FLTK for the non audio suite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1788198
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Please add comment for each patch explaining why they are needed
Patch0: %{name}-fsf.patch
Patch1: %{name}-scandir.patch
Patch2: %{name}-flags.patch
- In order to avoid unintentional SONAME bump, we do not recommend globbing
the major SONAME version, be more specific instead:
%{_libdir}/libntk*.so.1*
- Consider creating an Appdata file:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/non-ntk
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License",
"GNU Lesser General Public License (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* BSD
3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GNU
General Public License", "Expat License", "GPL (v2 or later) GNU
Lesser General Public License (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* GNU
Lesser General Public License", "Expat License GNU Lesser General
Public License (v2 or later)". 402 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/non-
ntk/review-non-ntk/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a
[Bug 1787970] Review Request: glues - GLU port for OpenGL ES
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787970
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Requires: %{name} = %{version} → Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "SGI Free Software License B (v2.0)",
"SGI Free Software License B", "zlib/libpng license", "SGI Free
Software License B (v1.1)". 35 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/glues/review-
glues/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 512000 bytes in 71 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see
[Bug 1787306] Review Request: bubblemail - An unread mail notification dbus service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787306 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com Summary|Review Request: Bubblemail |Review Request: bubblemail |- An unread mail|- An unread mail |notification dbus service |notification dbus service Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Fedora Account System Username: Razer Got nobody under that name or email in the FAS database. Read this for a howto join: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd=PackageMaintainers/Join Also I suggest you read the Guidelines as your package is not conforming to it: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1787919] Review Request: marker - GTK 3 markdown editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787919
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- I would prefix the version number in case upstream move to a more standard
version number:
Version:0.0.2019.11.06
- Push for upstream to put their binaries in lib/lib64 rather than share:
marker.x86_64: E: arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share
/usr/share/com.github.fabiocolacio.marker/extensions/libscroll-extension.so
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager
[Bug 1785970] Review Request: python-jsonrpcserver - Process JSON-RPC requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1785970 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-01-07 23:25:09 --- Comment #4 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Built for rawhide. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1785495] Review Request: python-pwntools - A CTF framework and exploit development library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1785495 --- Comment #11 from W. Michael Petullo --- Spec URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/python-pwntools.spec SRPM URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/python-pwntools-4.0.0-0.1.b0.fc31.src.rpm Description: - Fix typos in URL and Source0 I separately updated the python-intervaltree in Rawhide. See https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=40254996. I will bring up the Python 2 shebang issues with the upstream developers. The package has a name that exists because I am revitalizing an orphaned package. I will bring up the issues highlighted by rpmlint with the upstream developers. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1694295] Review Request: gwe - System utility designed to provide information of NVIDIA card
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694295 --- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin --- (In reply to Artem from comment #3) > You right, this BR packages not needed. > > Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gwe.spec > SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/for-review/gwe-0.12.3-7.fc30.src.rpm > > So now waiting for PR merge... ⏳ python-xlib has a new release, could you bring it to Fedora and unbundle? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1785970] Review Request: python-jsonrpcserver - Process JSON-RPC requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1785970 Bug 1785970 depends on bug 1786207, which changed state. Bug 1786207 Summary: Review Request: python-aiozmq - ZeroMQ integration with asyncio https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786207 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1786207] Review Request: python-aiozmq - ZeroMQ integration with asyncio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786207 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-01-07 23:17:27 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1787429] Review Request: mopidy - An extensible music server written in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787429 --- Comment #6 from Tobias --- Thanks. Updated spec and srpm: SRPM: https://github.com/fork-graveyard/mopidy-packaging/releases/download/v4/mopidy-3.0.1-1.fc29.src.rpm Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fork-graveyard/mopidy-packaging/v4/mopidy.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1785982] Review Request: python-qdarkstyle - A dark stylesheet for Python and Qt applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1785982 Bug 1785982 depends on bug 1785977, which changed state. Bug 1785977 Summary: Review Request: python-helpdev - HelpDev - Extracts information about the Python environment easily https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1785977 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1785977] Review Request: python-helpdev - HelpDev - Extracts information about the Python environment easily
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1785977 Mukundan Ragavan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-01-07 23:09:03 --- Comment #7 from Mukundan Ragavan --- Built on rawhide. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1787429] Review Request: mopidy - An extensible music server written in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787429
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Glob the extension for man pages as the compression may change in the
future:
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.*
%{_mandir}/man8/mopidyctl.8.*
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://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 1786943] Review Request: nodejs-pg-packet-stream - Packet stream reader for Postgres
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786943 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-01-07 22:51:01 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1786962] Review Request: grim - Grab images from a Wayland compositor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786962 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Review looks good, 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 1786943] Review Request: nodejs-pg-packet-stream - Packet stream reader for Postgres
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786943 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nodejs-pg-packet-stream -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1785495] Review Request: python-pwntools - A CTF framework and exploit development library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1785495
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Typo in URL and Source0: use % not $ for RPM variables:
URL:https://github.com/Gallopsled/%{srcname}/
Source0:
https://github.com/Gallopsled/%{srcname}/archive/%{version}beta0.tar.gz
- Package is not installable:
DEBUG util.py:582: Error:
DEBUG util.py:582: Problem: conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:582:- nothing provides python3.8dist(intervaltree) >= 3
needed by python3-pwntools-4.0.0-0.1.b0.fc32.noarch
Seems you're the maintainer of intervaltree, update it to 3?
- there's a weird list of files with a Py2 shebang
python3-pwntools.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pwnlib/commandline/__init__.py 644
/usr/bin/env python2
python3-pwntools.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pwnlib/commandline/asm.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python2
python3-pwntools.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pwnlib/commandline/checksec.py 644
/usr/bin/env python2
python3-pwntools.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pwnlib/commandline/constgrep.py 644
/usr/bin/env python2
python3-pwntools.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pwnlib/commandline/cyclic.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python2
python3-pwntools.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pwnlib/commandline/debug.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python2
python3-pwntools.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pwnlib/commandline/disablenx.py 644
/usr/bin/env python2
python3-pwntools.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pwnlib/commandline/disasm.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python2
python3-pwntools.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pwnlib/commandline/elfdiff.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python2
python3-pwntools.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pwnlib/commandline/elfpatch.py 644
/usr/bin/env python2
python3-pwntools.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pwnlib/commandline/hex.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python2
python3-pwntools.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pwnlib/commandline/phd.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python2
python3-pwntools.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pwnlib/commandline/shellcraft.py 644
/usr/bin/env python2
python3-pwntools.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pwnlib/commandline/template.py 644
/usr/bin/env python2
python3-pwntools.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pwnlib/commandline/unhex.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python2
python3-pwntools.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pwnlib/commandline/update.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python
python3-pwntools.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pwnlib/context/__init__.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python2
python3-pwntools.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pwnlib/term/readline.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python2
python3-pwntools.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pwnlib/timeout.py 644 /usr/bin/env python2
python3-pwntools.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pwnlib/tubes/buffer.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python2
python3-pwntools.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pwnlib/util/sh_string.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python2
python3-pwntools.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pwnlib/elf/datatypes.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python
python3-pwntools.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pwnlib/encoders/i386/xor.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python2
python3-pwntools.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pwnlib/encoders/mips/xor.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python2
See with upstream if the python2 is what is intended.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pwntools
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
= 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
[Bug 1787140] Review Request: python-pymeeus - Python implementation of Jean Meeus astronomical routines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787140 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pymeeus -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1786863] Review Request: python-django-email-url - Use an URL to configure email backend settings in your Django Application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786863 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-django-email-url -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1786871] Review Request: python-django-cache-url - Use Cache URLs in your Django application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786871 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-cc50cbc4d4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-cc50cbc4d4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1786871] Review Request: python-django-cache-url - Use Cache URLs in your Django application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786871 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-9be5b8affd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-9be5b8affd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1786871] Review Request: python-django-cache-url - Use Cache URLs in your Django application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786871 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-369015a347 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-369015a347 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1787366] Review Request: php-psr-http-server-middleware - Common interface for HTTP server-side middleware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787366
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/php-psr-http-server-middleware/review-php-
psr-http-server-middleware/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: 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,
[Bug 1786869] Review Request: python-django-search-url - Use Search URLs in your Django Application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786869 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-django-search-url -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1786875] Review Request: python-django-configurations - A helper for organizing Django settings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786875 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-django-configurations -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1786855] Review Request: python-nose-timer - A timer plugin for nosetests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786855 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-371cbf80be has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-371cbf80be -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1786855] Review Request: python-nose-timer - A timer plugin for nosetests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786855 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-6115d78a7d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6115d78a7d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1786943] Review Request: nodejs-pg-packet-stream - Packet stream reader for Postgres
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786943
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Remove executable bits on LICENSE file in %prep
nodejs-pg-packet-stream.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/licenses/nodejs-pg-packet-stream/LICENSE
Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
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". 30 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/nodejs-pg-packet-stream/review-nodejs-pg-
packet-stream/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %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
[Bug 1786940] Review Request: python-holidays - Generate and work with holidays in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786940 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-holidays -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1786834] Review Request: ghc-brick - A declarative terminal user interface library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786834
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License". 59 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-brick/review-ghc-
brick/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package
[Bug 1786656] Review Request: python-play-scraper - Scrapes and parses application data from Google Play Store
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786656 --- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1786833] Review Request: ghc-microlens-platform - Feature-complete microlens
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786833
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Latest version is 0.4.0
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "BSD (unspecified)". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-microlens-
platform/review-ghc-microlens-platform/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]:
[Bug 1786831] Review Request: ghc-path - Support for well-typed paths
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786831
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Latest version is 0.7.0
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-path/review-ghc-
path/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]:
[Bug 1786830] Review Request: ghc-text-metrics - Calculate various string metrics efficiently
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786830
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "BSD (unspecified)". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-text-
metrics/review-ghc-text-metrics/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]:
[Bug 1787271] Review Request: golang-github-ssgelm-cookiejarparser - Parses a curl cookiejar file into a Go http.CookieJar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787271 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-ssgelm-cookiejarparser -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1786656] Review Request: python-play-scraper - Scrapes and parses application data from Google Play Store
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786656 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-play-scraper -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1786871] Review Request: python-django-cache-url - Use Cache URLs in your Django application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786871 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-django-cache-url -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1786829] Review Request: ghc-repline - Haskeline wrapper for GHCi-like REPL interfaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786829
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Latest version is 0.2.2.0
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 5 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-repline/review-ghc-
repline/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]:
[Bug 1786827] Review Request: ghc-prettyprinter - A modern, easy to use, well-documented, extensible pretty-printer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786827
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Latest version seems to be 1.5.1
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD (unspecified)". 27 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-prettyprinter/review-ghc-
prettyprinter/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest
[Bug 1786871] Review Request: python-django-cache-url - Use Cache URLs in your Django application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786871 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||python-django-cache-url -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1786871] Review Request: python-django-cache-url - Use Cache URLs in your Django application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786871 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1750506] Review Request: hasciicam - ascii video cam
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750506 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Files are 404, any update here? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1787271] Review Request: golang-github-ssgelm-cookiejarparser - Parses a curl cookiejar file into a Go http.CookieJar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787271 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1786869] Review Request: python-django-search-url - Use Search URLs in your Django Application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786869 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1786863] Review Request: python-django-email-url - Use an URL to configure email backend settings in your Django Application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786863 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python-dj-email-url - Use |python-django-email-url - |an URL to configure email |Use an URL to configure |backend settings in your|email backend settings in |Django Application |your Django Application Alias||python-django-email-url --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1786869] Review Request: python-django-search-url - Use Search URLs in your Django Application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786869 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python-dj-search-url - Use |python-django-search-url - |Search URLs in your Django |Use Search URLs in your |Application |Django Application -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1786869] Review Request: python-dj-search-url - Use Search URLs in your Django Application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786869 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||python-django-search-url -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1708161] Review Request: python-testfixtures - A collection of helpers and mock objects for unit tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1708161 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||python-testfixtures -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1786656] Review Request: python-play-scraper - Scrapes and parses application data from Google Play Store
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786656 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. File a bug for the failing tests. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1786855] Review Request: python-nose-timer - A timer plugin for nosetests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786855 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-nose-timer -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1786920] Review Request: python-pytest-django - A Django plugin for pytest
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786920 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pytest-django -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1786920] Review Request: python-pytest-django - A Django plugin for pytest
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786920 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||python-pytest-django -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1786875] Review Request: python-django-configurations - A helper for organizing Django settings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786875 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||python-django-configuration ||s --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1786920] Review Request: python-pytest-django - A Django plugin for pytest
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786920 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1786855] Review Request: python-nose-timer - A timer plugin for nosetests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786855 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1786855] Review Request: python-nose-timer - A timer plugin for nosetests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786855
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Use %{python3_version} or a glob * instead of ?.? because Python 3.10 will
break this package otherwise:
%{python3_sitelib}/nose_timer-%{version}-py*.egg-info
- License ok
- Latest version packaged
- Builds in mock
- No rpmlint errors
- Conforms to Packaging Guidelines
Package approved.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://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 1786920] Review Request: python-pytest-django - A Django plugin for pytest
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786920
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Use %{python3_version} or a glob * instead of ?.? because Python 3.10 will
break this package otherwise:
%{python3_sitelib}/pytest_django-%{version}-py*.egg-info
-
Source0:
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/%{pypi_name}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz
→
Source0:%{pypi_source}
- License ok
- Latest version packaged
- Builds in mock
- No rpmlint errors
- Conforms to Packaging Guidelines
Package approved.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://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 1786875] Review Request: python-django-configurations - A helper for organizing Django settings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786875
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Source0:
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/d/%{pypi_name}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz
→
Source0:%{pypi_source}
- Use %{python3_version} or a glob * instead of ?.? because Python 3.10 will
break this package otherwise:
%{python3_sitelib}/django_configurations-%{version}-py*.egg-info
- License ok
- Latest version packaged
- Builds in mock
- No rpmlint errors
- Conforms to Packaging Guidelines
Package approved.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://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 1786871] Review Request: python-django-cache-url - Use Cache URLs in your Django application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786871
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Source0:
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/d/%{pypi_name}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz
→
Source0:%{pypi_source}
- Use %{python3_version} or a glob * instead of ?.? because Python 3.10 will
break this package otherwise:
%{python3_sitelib}/django_cache_url-%{version}-py*.egg-info
- License ok
- Latest version packaged
- Builds in mock
- No rpmlint errors
- Conforms to Packaging Guidelines
Package approved.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://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 1786869] Review Request: python-dj-search-url - Use Search URLs in your Django Application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786869
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Source0:
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/d/%{pypi_name}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz
→
Source0:%{pypi_source}
- Use %{python3_version} or a glob * instead of ?.? because Python 3.10 will
break this package otherwise:
%{python3_sitelib}/dj_search_url-%{version}-py*.egg-info
- License ok
- Latest version packaged
- Builds in mock
- No rpmlint errors
- Conforms to Packaging Guidelines
Package approved.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://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 1786863] Review Request: python-dj-email-url - Use an URL to configure email backend settings in your Django Application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786863
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Use %{python3_version} or a glob * instead of ?.? because Python 3.10 will
break this package otherwise:
%{python3_sitelib}/dj_email_url-%{version}-py*.egg-info
- License ok
- Latest version packaged
- Builds in mock
- No rpmlint errors
- Conforms to Packaging Guidelines
Package approved.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://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 1734161] Review Request: scitokens-cpp - C++ SciTokens Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734161 --- Comment #18 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/scitokens-cpp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1733686] Review Request: python-qcelemental - Periodic table, physical constants, and molecule parsing for quantum chemistry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733686 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-qcelemental -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1787224] Review Request: python-yaswfp - Yet Another SWF Parser in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787224 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-f955d2faae has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-f955d2faae -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1787226] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-asyncio - Sphinx extension to support coroutines in markup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787226 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-cf21788410 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-cf21788410 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1787226] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-asyncio - Sphinx extension to support coroutines in markup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787226 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-37b6254885 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-37b6254885 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1786940] Review Request: python-holidays - Generate and work with holidays in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786940
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Use %{python3_version} or a glob * instead of ?.? because Python 3.10 will
break this package otherwise:
%{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py*.egg-info
- License ok
- Latest version packaged
- Builds in mock
- No rpmlint errors
- Conforms to Packaging Guidelines
Package approved.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://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 1787224] Review Request: python-yaswfp - Yet Another SWF Parser in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787224 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-a248b45ec9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-a248b45ec9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1694295] Review Request: gwe - System utility designed to provide information of NVIDIA card
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694295 --- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner --- Are you interested in a review swap? Please take a look into bug #1788327 or bug #1788270. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1786955] Review Request: python-aiosqlite - Asyncio bridge to the standard SQLite3 module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786955
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Use %{python3_version} or a glob * instead of ?.? because Python 3.10 will
break this package otherwise:
%{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py*.egg-info
-
Source0:
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/a/%{pypi_name}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz
→
Source0:%{pypi_source}
- License ok
- Latest version packaged
- Builds in mock
- No rpmlint errors
- Conforms to Packaging Guidelines
Package approved.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://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 1787673] Review Request: perl-MooX-Role-Logger - Universal logging via Log::Any
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787673 Sandro Mani changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-01-07 18:50:19 -- 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 1786958] Review Request: python-aiomqtt - AsyncIO asynchronous wrapper around paho-mqtt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786958
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Use %{python3_version} or a glob * instead of ?.? because Python 3.10 will
break this package otherwise:
%{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py*.egg-info
- Tests fail:
= 1 warnings, 4 error in 1.04 seconds
==
> raise child_exception_type(errno_num, err_msg, err_filename)
E FileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory:
'mosquitto'
BR mosquitto:
BuildRequires: mosquitto
- License ok
- Latest version packaged
- Builds in mock
- No rpmlint errors
- Conforms to Packaging Guidelines
Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue 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 1733686] Review Request: python-qcelemental - Periodic table, physical constants, and molecule parsing for quantum chemistry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733686 --- Comment #5 from Susi Lehtola --- Thanks for the review!! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1784162] Review Request: rust-zstd - Binding for the zstd compression library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1784162 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||loganje...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Jerry James --- This package has the same bindgen problem: Error: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides crate(zstd-safe/bindgen) = 2.0.3 needed by rust-zstd+bindgen-devel-0.5.1-1.fc32.noarch (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1733686] Review Request: python-qcelemental - Periodic table, physical constants, and molecule parsing for quantum chemistry
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1733686 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- LGTM, package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1787226] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-asyncio - Sphinx extension to support coroutines in markup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787226 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sphinxcontrib-asyncio -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1787140] Review Request: python-pymeeus - Python implementation of Jean Meeus astronomical routines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787140
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Source0:
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/p/%{pypi_name}/PyMeeus-%{version}.tar.gz
→
Source0:%{pypi_source}
- Use %{python3_version} or a glob * instead of ?.? because Python 3.10 will
break this package otherwise:
%{python3_sitelib}/PyMeeus-%{version}-py*.egg-info
- Delete hidden empty file:
python-pymeeus-doc.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/doc/python-pymeeus-doc/html/.nojekyll
python-pymeeus-doc.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/share/doc/python-pymeeus-doc/html/.nojekyll
- License ok
- Latest version packaged
- Builds in mock
- Conforms to Packaging Guidelines
Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue 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 1787618] Review Request: libzia - Platform abstraction layer for the tucnak package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787618
--- Comment #4 from Jaroslav Škarvada ---
(In reply to Guido Aulisi from comment #3)
> This is an informal preliminary review:
>
Thanks.
>
> > BuildRequires: gcc, make, automake, libtool
> > BuildRequires: glib2-devel, gtk2-devel, SDL-devel, libpng-devel,
> > libftdi-devel
> Please list one require per line, it's really more readable
>
NP, fixed.
> > Patch0: libzia-4.18-soname-fix.patch
> Please document this patch, and if possible talk to upstream to use correct
> soname
>
Comment added:
# This is to fulfill Fedora requirement - it marks the interface with
# version number 0. Upstream uses --release versioning in libtool.
# They do not support linking between different versions of tucnak and
# libzia, i.e. tucnak-4.18 needs to be linked to libzia-4.18.
> Devel package should require main package:
> Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
>
Fixed.
> > %setup -q
> > %patch0 -p1 -b .soname-fix
> You could use
> %autosetup -p1
>
I know, but I prefer this form - it's better when e.g. rebasing multiple
patches.
> > %ldconfig_scriptlets
> I think it's not needed in all supported Fedora releases
>
I think you are right - no EPEL-7 intended at the moment - dropped.
> > %files
> > ...
> > %{_libdir}/libzia-%{version}.so.*
> According to [0], it's better to glob shared libraries this way:
> %{_libdir}/libzia-%{version}.so.0*
>
Fixed.
New version:
Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libzia/libzia.spec
SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/libzia/libzia-4.18-2.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 1787216] Review Request: python-aiomysql - MySQL driver for asyncio
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787216
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Use %{python3_version} or a glob * instead of ?.? because Python 3.10 will
break this package otherwise:
%{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py*.egg-info
- License ok
- Latest version packaged
- Builds in mock
- No rpmlint errors
- Conforms to Packaging Guidelines
Package approved.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://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 1787226] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-asyncio - Sphinx extension to support coroutines in markup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787226 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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
