[Bug 1795884] Review Request: kawa - Scheme programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795884 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- > - Drop epoch That is wrong. It'll break upgrades from F30. > - Use JBoss servlet instead of Toncat serverlet Tomcat? http:// → https://. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1790241] Review Request: pipx - Utility for easily installing venvs for python3 applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1790241 --- Comment #17 from Tobias --- > On point 2, the license is just MIT. I checked. I'm not sure where the "or" > came from. looking at https://github.com/pipxproject/pipx/blob/master/LICENSE, lines 1 to 21 are (some form of) the MIT license, lines 23 to 54 are the 3-Clause-BSD. the comment above %files only makes sense for python3-* packages; maybe remove it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1795884] Review Request: kawa - Scheme programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795884 Mosaab Alzoubi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1735913 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1735913 [Bug 1735913] kawa: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f31 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1795884] Review Request: kawa - Scheme programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795884 Mosaab Alzoubi changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Mosaab Alzoubi --- This review just unretirement review. Kawa already in F30. Dropped for FTBFS in F31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-83db0ad6a3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1795884] New: Review Request: kawa - Scheme programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795884 Bug ID: 1795884 Summary: Review Request: kawa - Scheme programming language Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: moc...@hotmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kawa/raw/f30/f/kawa.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1413/41151413/kawa-3.1.1-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: Scheme programming language Fedora Account System Username: moceap -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 Jafar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||alishajafar2...@gmail.com --- Comment #78 from Alisha Jafar --- http://www.beirutescortservice.com/ http://www.beirutescortservice.com/beirut-escorts.php http://www.beirutescortservice.com/beirut-escort-girls.php http://www.beirutescortservice.com/beirut-escorts-services.php http://www.beirutescortsevice.com/escorts-beirut.php http://www.beirutescortservice.com/lebanon-escorts.php http://www.joymodelsbeirut.com/ http://www.escortseans.com/ http://www.escortslebanonbeirut.com/ http://www.escortlebanonbeirut.com/ http://www.beirutescorts.co/ http://www.missbeirutescorts.com/ http://www.escortsinlebanon.biz/ http://www.istanbulescortservice.com/ http://www.istanbulvipescorts.com/ http://www.nitudas.com/ http://www.soneeya.in/ https://missbeirutescortsalisha.blogspot.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 1765214] Review Request: google-roboto-mono-fonts - Google Roboto Mono fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1765214
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- the date should be the date you took the snapshot, not the date of the
commit
- Release: 0.1.20190125git%{?dist} → Release:
1.20200129git5338537%{?dist}
Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
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/google-roboto-mono-fonts
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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/google-roboto-
mono-fonts/review-google-roboto-mono-fonts/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in
[Bug 1765214] Review Request: google-roboto-mono-fonts - Google Roboto Mono fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1765214 --- Comment #2 from Link Dupont --- Thanks for the review! I updated the spec file to use %_metainfodir instead. Here's an srpm and spec. Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~linkdupont/google-roboto-mono-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~linkdupont/srpms/google-roboto-mono-fonts-2.002-0.1.20190125git.fc31.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1795470] Review Request: antlr4-cpp-runtime - Parser generator (ANother Tool for Language Recognition)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795470 --- Comment #3 from Jerry James --- Thanks for the suggestion, Fabio. I hadn't considered that. I'll try to work up a spec that does that and see if it is significantly more or less awkward than the current spec file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1795468] Review Request: mojo-executor - Execute other plugins within a maven plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795468 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James --- Uh oh. I had heard about sonatype-oss-parent being deprecated but then forgot about it. To my knowledge, mojo-executor has not been in Fedora before. Has it? I don't think this is bringing back an old package; I think this is adding a new one, so the deprecation really is a problem. Is there something that replaces sonatype-oss-parent? I'm willing to work with mojo-executor upstream to move to the replacement, but I don't see a replacement mentioned on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Deprecate_Sonatype_OSS_Parent. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1795467] Review Request: treelayout - Efficient and customizable tree layout algorithm in Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795467 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James --- Thank you for the review, Zbigniew! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1790241] Review Request: pipx - Utility for easily installing venvs for python3 applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1790241 --- Comment #16 from Martin Jackson --- OK - thanks, Tobias, for getting your permissions sorted out. Thanks, Fabio for looking this over. I've updated the spec per your recommendations to declutter. I copied a bunch of things in there initially; my goal is to learn packaging by doing and this is helping! On point 2, the license is just MIT. I checked. I'm not sure where the "or" came from. I changed the %files section but just used %name since it's the same. As far as I know it's primarily used as the utility. SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mhjacks/mhjacks_proposed_pkgs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01207365-pipx/pipx-0.15.1.3-1.fc32.src.rpm SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mhjacks/mhjacks_proposed_pkgs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01207365-pipx/pipx.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 1795840] New: Review Request: rust-float-ord - Total ordering for floating-point numbers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795840 Bug ID: 1795840 Summary: Review Request: rust-float-ord - Total ordering for floating-point numbers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rbar...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://bowlofeggs.fedorapeople.org/rust-float-ord.spec SRPM URL: https://bowlofeggs.fedorapeople.org/rust-float-ord-0.2.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Total ordering for floating-point numbers. Fedora Account System Username: bowlofeggs -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1785899] Review Request: rust-rav1e - Fastest and safest AV1 encoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1785899 --- Comment #12 from Robert-André Mauchin --- 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 1795802] Review Request: phonon-qt4-backend-gstreamer - Gstreamer phonon backend for Qt4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795802
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 ---
- Consider verifying the archive with gpgverify in %prep
[!]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
- phonon.kde.org does not resolve, use https://community.kde.org/Phonon
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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or
"Revised" License", "LGPL (v2 or v3)", "LGPL (v2.1 or v3)", "GNU
Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)". 53 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/phonon-qt4-backend-gstreamer/review-phonon-
qt4-backend-gstreamer/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[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.
[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]: 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
[Bug 1795801] Review Request: phonon-qt4 - Multimedia framework api for Qt4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795801 --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Seems phonon.kde.org used to redirect to https://community.kde.org/Phonon -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1795801] Review Request: phonon-qt4 - Multimedia framework api for Qt4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795801
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- BR gcc-c++ explicitly
- Add cmake/COPYING-CMAKE-SCRIPTS to the %license
- Add "and BSD" to the License field for said script and avv a comment
explaining the License breakdown
- Add a comment for each patch explaining why they are needed
- Consider verifying the archive with gpgverify in %prep
[!]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
- The Header and changelog entry are not consistent:
Version: 4.10.3
Release: 10%{?dist}
%changelog
* Wed Jul 31 2019 Rex Dieter - 4.10.3-1
- 4.10.3
- phonon.kde.org does not resolve, is there no other official URL?
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++/
- 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.
Note: License file COPYING-CMAKE-SCRIPTS is not marked as %license
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
= 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]: 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.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or
"Revised" License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "LGPL
(v2.1 or v3)", "GPL (v2.1) LGPL (v2.1 or v3)", "GPL (v2.1) GNU Lesser
General Public License (v2.1)", "GNU General Public License (v2)",
"GNU Lesser General Public License (v2)", "LGPL (v2 or v3)". 222 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/phonon-qt4/review-phonon-
qt4/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/lib64/kde4/plugins/phonon_backend(phonon),
/usr/share/kde4/services/phononbackends(phonon),
/usr/share/phonon(phonon), /usr/include/KDE(phonon-devel),
/usr/include/KDE/Phonon(phonon-devel),
/usr/include/KDE/Phonon/Experimental(phonon-devel),
/usr/include/phonon(phonon-devel), /usr/include/phonon/Phonon(phonon-
devel), /usr/include/phonon/experimental(phonon-devel),
/usr/lib64/cmake(qjson-devel, libsavitar-devel, pulseaudio-libs-devel,
uid_wrapper, telepathy-qt5-devel, telepathy-qt4-devel, leatherman-
devel, PackageKit-Qt5-devel, libssh-devel, qt5-qtbase, marble-astro-
devel, kqtquickcharts, qjson-qt5-devel, openobex-devel, libdynaplugz-
devel, marble-widget-qt5-devel, libarcus-lulzbot-devel, phonon-
qt5-devel, cmake-filesystem, qaccessibilityclient-devel, libarcus-
devel, phonon-devel), /usr/lib64/cmake/phonon(phonon-devel),
/usr/share/phonon/buildsystem(phonon-devel)
[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
[Bug 1789637] Review Request: R-modelr - Modelling Functions that Work with the Pipe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1789637 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-56fdb2df01 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-56fdb2df01 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1789637] Review Request: R-modelr - Modelling Functions that Work with the Pipe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1789637 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-888faeae6d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-888faeae6d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1785899] Review Request: rust-rav1e - Fastest and safest AV1 encoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1785899 --- Comment #11 from Robert-André Mauchin --- New Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-rav1e.spec New SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-rav1e-0.2.1-1.fc32.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1785899] Review Request: rust-rav1e - Fastest and safest AV1 encoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1785899 --- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin --- (In reply to dan.cermak from comment #9) > I've taken a look at this package and found two potential issues: > - The source file rav1e-0.2.1/src/ext/x86/x86inc.asm is licensed under the > ISC license, which is not mentioned in the spec (probably because upstream > doesn't list it themselves, it should be added for completenes though) Will fix. > - The package contains a clause for patents according to the "Alliance for > Open Media Patent License 1.0", which I am uncomfortable to judge from a > legal standpoint whether that is safe to include in Fedora. Could you ask > the legal team whether this is ok to include in Fedora? > See the Review Request for dav1d where legal gave its opinion: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652305#c7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1795249] Review Request: sdbus-cpp - High-level C++ D-Bus library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795249
dan.cer...@cgc-instruments.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from dan.cer...@cgc-instruments.com ---
I have the following comments:
- please do not glob the SONAME from the shared library in %files, this is as
far as I know either not allowed or strongly discouraged
- upstream has a test suite that is neither built nor executed in %check, why?
- upstream provides a way to build a full API documentation, I would suggest to
build it and put it into a devel-doc subpackage
- (minor) there's no need for the -p1 flag in %autosetup, you're not patching
anything
- (minor) consider changing `BuildRequires: cmake` to `BuildRequires: cmake >
3.6`
- (minor) the spec from the source rpm and the link do not match, but the
differences are just in the %changelog
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", "GNU Lesser General Public License
(v2.1 or later)". 40 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/dan/fedora-scm/1795249-sdbus-
cpp/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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 153600 bytes in 10 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files
[Bug 1795249] Review Request: sdbus-cpp - High-level C++ D-Bus library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795249 dan.cer...@cgc-instruments.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dan.cermak@cgc-instruments. ||com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dan.cermak@cgc-instruments. ||com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1795801] Review Request: phonon-qt4 - Multimedia framework api for Qt4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795801 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1795802 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795802 [Bug 1795802] Review Request: phonon-qt4-backend-gstreamer - Gstreamer phonon backend for Qt4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1795802] Review Request: phonon-qt4-backend-gstreamer - Gstreamer phonon backend for Qt4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795802 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||phonon-qt4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1795801] Review Request: phonon-qt4 - Multimedia framework api for Qt4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795801 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||656997 (kde-reviews) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656997 [Bug 656997] kde-related package review tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1795802] Review Request: phonon-qt4-backend-gstreamer - Gstreamer phonon backend for Qt4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795802 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||656997 (kde-reviews) Depends On||1795801 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656997 [Bug 656997] kde-related package review tracker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795801 [Bug 1795801] Review Request: phonon-qt4 - Multimedia framework api for Qt4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1795802] New: Review Request: phonon-qt4-backend-gstreamer - Gstreamer phonon backend for Qt4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795802 Bug ID: 1795802 Summary: Review Request: phonon-qt4-backend-gstreamer - Gstreamer phonon backend for Qt4 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rdie...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/phonon-qt4/phonon-qt4-backend-gstreamer.spec SRPM URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/phonon-qt4/phonon-qt4-backend-gstreamer-4.9.1-10.fc31.src.rpm Description: Gstreamer phonon backend for Qt4 Fedora Account System Username: rdieter A compat package, of sorts, latest phonon packages support Qt5+ only, so this is needed for legacy Qt4 applications -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795801] New: Review Request: phonon-qt4 - Multimedia framework api for Qt4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795801 Bug ID: 1795801 Summary: Review Request: phonon-qt4 - Multimedia framework api for Qt4 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rdie...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/phonon-qt4/phonon-qt4.spec SRPM URL: https://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/phonon-qt4/phonon-qt4-4.10.3-10.fc31.src.rpm Description: Multimedia framework api for Qt4 Fedora Account System Username: rdieter A compat package, of sorts, latest phonon packages support Qt5+ only, so this is needed for legacy Qt4 applications -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795797] Review Request: golang-github-azure-amqp - AMQP 1.0 client library for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795797 --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41157360 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1795797] New: Review Request: golang-github-azure-amqp - AMQP 1.0 client library for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795797 Bug ID: 1795797 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-azure-amqp - AMQP 1.0 client library for Go Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: zebo...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/golang-github-azure-amqp.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/golang-github-azure-amqp-0.12.7-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: github.com/Azure/go-amqp is an AMQP 1.0 client implementation for Go. Fedora Account System Username: eclipseo -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1795399] Review Request: wof - A window switcher, application launcher and dmenu replacement for wayland
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795399
--- Comment #1 from dan.cer...@cgc-instruments.com ---
A few comments:
- the license is wrong, the package is licensed under the GPLv3.
- there's no need to pass `-p1` to %autosetup, when no patches are added
- Is it necessary to pass `-Dversion=v%{version}` to meson? If I understand the
meson.build correctly, then it should use the correct value by itself.
- Please pass a static url (preferably to the specific git commit) to the *raw*
spec file (i.e. no html), so that fedora-review can use the spec. Here the url
to the spec would be:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gicmo/spec/99d9488ddd345e2fc2dba598d02a0e3b18036ef8/wofi/wofi.spec
Otherwise it looks good to me, I still need to give it a try though.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795771] New: Review Request: micronucleus - Flashing tool for USB devices with Micronucleus bootloader
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795771 Bug ID: 1795771 Summary: Review Request: micronucleus - Flashing tool for USB devices with Micronucleus bootloader Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: lkund...@v3.sk QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora SPEC: https://people.freedesktop.org/~lkundrak/SPECS/micronucleus.spec SRPM: https://people.freedesktop.org/~lkundrak/SRPMS/micronucleus-2.04-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: This package ships a "micronucleus" command line tool. It is used to upload programs to AVR ATtiny devices that utilize the Micronucleus boot loader. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1795399] Review Request: wof - A window switcher, application launcher and dmenu replacement for wayland
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795399 dan.cer...@cgc-instruments.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dan.cermak@cgc-instruments. ||com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dan.cermak@cgc-instruments. ||com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1794912] Review Request: nyancat - Nyancat rendered in your terminal.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794912 --- Comment #7 from Artur Iwicki --- >But the manpage is not included in the tarball: Uhh, are you sure? When I fetch the Source0 URL specified in the spec I get a tarball that has nyancat-1.5.2/nyancat.1 happily sitting there. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1789637] Review Request: R-modelr - Modelling Functions that Work with the Pipe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1789637 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/R-modelr -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1785899] Review Request: rust-rav1e - Fastest and safest AV1 encoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1785899 dan.cer...@cgc-instruments.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dan.cermak@cgc-instruments. ||com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1785899] Review Request: rust-rav1e - Fastest and safest AV1 encoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1785899
dan.cer...@cgc-instruments.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||dan.cermak@cgc-instruments.
||com
--- Comment #9 from dan.cer...@cgc-instruments.com ---
I've taken a look at this package and found two potential issues:
- The source file rav1e-0.2.1/src/ext/x86/x86inc.asm is licensed under the ISC
license, which is not mentioned in the spec (probably because upstream doesn't
list it themselves, it should be added for completenes though)
- The package contains a clause for patents according to the "Alliance for Open
Media Patent License 1.0", which I am uncomfortable to judge from a legal
standpoint whether that is safe to include in Fedora. Could you ask the legal
team whether this is ok to include in Fedora?
Beside that, the package looks good to me. Full review below:
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++/
- Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_file_permissions
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Package contains no static executables.
[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.
[!]: 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.
[ ]: 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.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to
[Bug 1795081] Review Request: boinctui - Fullscreen text mode manager for BOINC-client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795081 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Robert-André Mauchin --- (In reply to Timothy Mullican from comment #11) > koji build --scratch rawhide boinctui-2.5.0-1.el7.src.rpm You can also use fedpkg for that: fedpkg --release f32 scratch-build --srpm Packahe is approved, you still need to find a sponsor: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1762463] Review Request: golang-github-yuin-goldmark - Markdown parser written in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762463 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Fixed In Version||golang-github-yuin-goldmark ||-1.1.19-1.fc32 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-01-28 18:50:58 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1786953] Review Request: python-aiounittest - Test asyncio code more easily
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1786953 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- Apologies, I thought I had already approved, but toggled the bit incorrectly. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1795071] Review Request: python-textparser - Python text parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795071 --- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini --- fedora-review complains that the source file has a different MD5 checksum than a fresh download. I can verify that manually ... can you check what's going on? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1794912] Review Request: nyancat - Nyancat rendered in your terminal.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794912 --- Comment #6 from Tomas Tomecek --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/TomasTomecek/nyancat/704d271ba1ac0a4736e44fb206a6475cc4e333e4/nyancat.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/packit/TomasTomecek-nyancat-2/srpm-builds/01206320/nyancat-1.5.2-3.g704d271b.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 1795071] Review Request: python-textparser - Python text parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795071 --- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini --- (In reply to Fabian Affolter from comment #2) > This spec file is also done in the style as the pyp2rpm tool is doing it. Sure, but there's no reason why humans can't be better than simple automated tool :) Running full review now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1795071] Review Request: python-textparser - Python text parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795071 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the feedback. This spec file is also done in the style as the pyp2rpm tool is doing it. * Tue Jan 28 2020 Fabian Affolter - 0.23.0-2 - Update source URL - Fix ownership and style (rhbz#1795071) Updated files: Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-textparser.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-textparser-0.23.0-2.fc31.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1794912] Review Request: nyancat - Nyancat rendered in your terminal.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794912
--- Comment #5 from Tomas Tomecek ---
(In reply to Artur Iwicki from comment #4)
> ># upstream doesn't ship manpage yet:
> The man page is in the repo, it's just not included in the install script -
> which you don't use either way, so I see no reason why not to install the
> man page manually.
But the manpage is not included in the tarball:
https://github.com/klange/nyancat/pull/54
> >%license
> This should not be empty. Either ask upstream to provide a LICENCE file, or
> you can use awk to extract the copyright header (and thus, the licence) from
> src/nyancat.c:
> $ awk '1;/\*\//{exit}' < src/nyancat.c > LICENSE
yeah, the license file is not part in the upstream repo
thank you for the 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 1795077] Review Request: python-shodan - Python library and command-line utility for Shodan.io
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795077
Fabio Valentini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini ---
Note that the linked .spec file didn't match the contents of the .src.rpm file,
either you didn't update one of the uploads, or fedora-review downloaded the
wrong file (see the diff at the bottom). Just make sure you use the latest
version on import.
There's also rpmlint warnings about CRLF line endings in some files. You could
fix these with sed or dos2unix.
Otherwise, package looks good. APPROVED (fix the two points above 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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and
[Bug 1795077] Review Request: python-shodan - Python library and command-line utility for Shodan.io
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795077
--- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini ---
(In reply to Fabian Affolter from comment #2)
> %{url} could be an option. If the reviewer wants that then I will add it.
> Otherwise I prefer to keep things "copy-and-pastable" for humans in the spec
> file.
Right, but since non-copy-pastable %{version} and %{name} are already in there,
using %{url} won't make it worse :)
> >Also, why are you not using %{pypi_source} directly? Do the pypi sources
> > miss some files? If so, adding a comment why you're using the GitHub tarball
> > instead would be helpful for anybody who's looking at the package.
>
> GitHub is the upstream location for the source and not PyPI. As a long as
> the project is providing proper tarballs I think that we should stick to the
> original upstream location and not a third-party delivery mechanism.
That's fair, and your decision.
> > 3) You could deduplicate the %description, with something like:
> >
> > %global _description %{expand:
> > The official Python library and CLI for Shodan Shodan is a search engine
> > for
> > Internet-connected devices. Google lets you search for websites, Shodan lets
> > you search for devices. This library provides developers easy access to all
> > of the data stored in Shodan in order to automate tasks and integrate into
> > existing tools.}
> >
> > Then you can use:
> >
> > %description %{_description}
> >
> > and
> >
> > %description python3-%{pypi_name} %{_description}
>
> Again, this removes the possibility to re-use the description outside of the
> spec file with copy-and-paste. It makes sense if you have a dozen of
> subpackages and want to use the same text but for regular packages it
> doesn't add much value from my point of view.
How so? It just moves the definition a few lines up in the .spec file ...
> > 4) Since you're shipping both python3-shodan and shodan binary packages, you
> > could just name the source package shodan directly.
> >But that's a matter of style, I guess.
> >If you'll keep the source package named python-shodan, then "%files -n
> > python-%{pypi_name}-doc" is superfluous and could be just "%files doc".
>
> From my point of view, it's at the packager's discretion. This comes down to
> the decision if it is more a tool or a lib. In most cases the CLI part is an
> add-on to the lib.
Correct.
Still, "%files -n python-%{pypi_name}-doc" is superfluous and could be replaced
with "%files doc".
> > 5) I guess you're removing a stray shebang line from worldmap.py in %prep?
> > Adding a descriptive comment would be great.
>
> I really think that we should not add comments to every standard/common
> building block like remove shebang, fix permissions, remove the egg, remove
> the left-overs from the docs generation, etc.
>
> https://github.com/achillean/shodan-python/pull/118
That's your decision, it was only a suggestion.
Not everybody can sight-read sed scripts ;)
> > 6) For listing python3 modules, please use trailing slashes:
> >
> > %{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}/
> > %{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-*.egg-info/
> >
> > This will prevent upgrade issues if these ever change from directories to
> > files.
> >
> > You could also use something like this instead of the second line:
> >
> > %{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info/
> >
> > Then you'd not even need the glob.
>
> Fixed.
Great.
> > Let me know if these points are helpful, and when the package is ready for
> > final review.
>
> Thank you for your feedback.
>
> * Tue Jan 28 2020 Fabian Affolter - 1.21.3-2
> - Fix ownership
> - Improve the check workflow (rhbz#1795077)
>
> Updated files:
> Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-shodan.spec
> SRPM URL:
> https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-shodan-1.21.3-2.fc31.src.
> rpm
I'll run fedora-review for the formal review now.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review 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 1795077] Review Request: python-shodan - Python library and command-line utility for Shodan.io
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795077
--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter ---
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #1)
> Hi, I'll review your package.
Thanks
> Some recommendations:
>
> 1) I assume you're hiding tests behind the api_key bcond because they
> require an actual API key and internet access?
>So do you run tests locally with "rpmbuild -bb --with api_key"? Maybe add
> a comment for the bcond or in %check.
Comment added. Also, create the file for the API key during the build process.
> 2) I recommend you use HTTPS for the URL as well. Then you can also replace
> the URL prefix of the Source0 with %{url}.
GitHub is making sure with a HTTP 301 message that one uses HTTPS. Changed
anyway. Seems to be coming from pyp2rpm as this is the URL that is used in the
setup.py file (https://github.com/achillean/shodan-python/pull/119).
%{url} could be an option. If the reviewer wants that then I will add it.
Otherwise I prefer to keep things "copy-and-pastable" for humans in the spec
file.
>Also, why are you not using %{pypi_source} directly? Do the pypi sources
> miss some files? If so, adding a comment why you're using the GitHub tarball
> instead would be helpful for anybody who's looking at the package.
GitHub is the upstream location for the source and not PyPI. As a long as the
project is providing proper tarballs I think that we should stick to the
original upstream location and not a third-party delivery mechanism.
> 3) You could deduplicate the %description, with something like:
>
> %global _description %{expand:
> The official Python library and CLI for Shodan Shodan is a search engine for
> Internet-connected devices. Google lets you search for websites, Shodan lets
> you search for devices. This library provides developers easy access to all
> of the data stored in Shodan in order to automate tasks and integrate into
> existing tools.}
>
> Then you can use:
>
> %description %{_description}
>
> and
>
> %description python3-%{pypi_name} %{_description}
Again, this removes the possibility to re-use the description outside of the
spec file with copy-and-paste. It makes sense if you have a dozen of
subpackages and want to use the same text but for regular packages it doesn't
add much value from my point of view.
> 4) Since you're shipping both python3-shodan and shodan binary packages, you
> could just name the source package shodan directly.
>But that's a matter of style, I guess.
>If you'll keep the source package named python-shodan, then "%files -n
> python-%{pypi_name}-doc" is superfluous and could be just "%files doc".
From my point of view, it's at the packager's discretion. This comes down to
the decision if it is more a tool or a lib. In most cases the CLI part is an
add-on to the lib.
> 5) I guess you're removing a stray shebang line from worldmap.py in %prep?
> Adding a descriptive comment would be great.
I really think that we should not add comments to every standard/common
building block like remove shebang, fix permissions, remove the egg, remove the
left-overs from the docs generation, etc.
https://github.com/achillean/shodan-python/pull/118
> 6) For listing python3 modules, please use trailing slashes:
>
> %{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}/
> %{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-*.egg-info/
>
> This will prevent upgrade issues if these ever change from directories to
> files.
>
> You could also use something like this instead of the second line:
>
> %{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info/
>
> Then you'd not even need the glob.
Fixed.
> Let me know if these points are helpful, and when the package is ready for
> final review.
Thank you for your feedback.
* Tue Jan 28 2020 Fabian Affolter - 1.21.3-2
- Fix ownership
- Improve the check workflow (rhbz#1795077)
Updated files:
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-shodan.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-shodan-1.21.3-2.fc31.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://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 1768192] Review Request: git-secrets - Prevents committing secrets and credentials into git repos
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1768192 --- Comment #17 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/git-secrets -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1780369] Review Request: zezere - A provisioning service for Fedora IoT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1780369 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-01-28 13:44:16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1795620] New: Review Request: php-phpmyadmin-twig-i18n-extension - Internationalization support for Twig via the gettext library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795620 Bug ID: 1795620 Summary: Review Request: php-phpmyadmin-twig-i18n-extension - Internationalization support for Twig via the gettext library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/phpmyadmin/php-phpmyadmin-twig-i18n-extension.git/plain/php-phpmyadmin-twig-i18n-extension.spec?id=96504f6966788349b0874e0fa49cb73cc6e42c67 SRPM URL: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-phpmyadmin-twig-i18n-extension-2.0.0-1.remi.src.rpm Description: The i18n extension adds gettext support to Twig. It defines one tag, trans. Autoloader: /usr/share/php/PhpMyAdmin/Twig/Extensions/autoload.php Fedora Account System Username: remi New dependency of upcoming phpMyAdmin 5.0.2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 #8 from Artem --- @eclipseo, good news: python-xlib 0.26 pushed to F31 [1] and i pushed python-rx 3.0.1 for F31 as well. We can package GWE now. [1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-dd3dbcb6c1 --- https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/gwe/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01203910-gwe/gwe.spec https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/gwe/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01203910-gwe/gwe-0.13.3-4.fc32.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1781608] Review Request: python-pathtools - bring python-pathtools out of retirement
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1781608 --- Comment #9 from Pierre-YvesChibon --- Welcome to the packager group, use your power wisely :) you can now request the new package to be added to Fedora (fedpkg request-repo) and the branches you want to support (fedpkg request-branch) Let me know if you have any questions! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1781608] Review Request: python-pathtools - bring python-pathtools out of retirement
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1781608 --- Comment #8 from Pierre-YvesChibon --- Hi Stephen, I saw it. I wanted to ask you to do another one in another domain (ie: another language or so) but considering this is blocking other folks, I'll go ahead and sponsor you :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1795470] Review Request: antlr4-cpp-runtime - Parser generator (ANother Tool for Language Recognition)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795470 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||decatho...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|decatho...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini --- Taking this. Will start the review once the dependencies are in fedora. A suggestion regarding the SRPM name: You *could* make the main package "empty" and call it "antlr4-runtimes" or "antlr4-project", and have a noarch "antlr4" subpackage for the Java stuff. That would work around both the awkward name and the RPM restrictions. But that's just an idea. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1795469] Review Request: string-template-maven-plugin - Execute StringTemplate files during a maven build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795469 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||decatho...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|decatho...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini --- Looks like I was too late for the other two :) But once they are built, I'll review this package and antlr4. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1781608] Review Request: python-pathtools - bring python-pathtools out of retirement
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1781608 --- Comment #7 from Stephen Coady --- Hi Pierre, do you think this is ready? My review above was accepted by someone else so you may have missed it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1794912] Review Request: nyancat - Nyancat rendered in your terminal.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794912
Artur Iwicki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@svgames.pl
--- Comment #4 from Artur Iwicki ---
># upstream doesn't ship manpage yet:
The man page is in the repo, it's just not included in the install script -
which you don't use either way, so I see no reason why not to install the man
page manually.
># %%{_mandir}/man1/nyancat.1.gz
Do not assume that man pages will be gzipped; use a wildcard that can match any
compression method (including no compression).
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages
>%doc
If it's gonna be empty, just remove it.
>%license
This should not be empty. Either ask upstream to provide a LICENCE file, or you
can use awk to extract the copyright header (and thus, the licence) from
src/nyancat.c:
$ awk '1;/\*\//{exit}' < src/nyancat.c > LICENSE
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review 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 1795461] Review Request: practrand - Software package for the Randon number generation & testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795461
Artur Iwicki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@svgames.pl
--- Comment #1 from Artur Iwicki ---
>Summary:Software package for the Randon number generation & testing
A typo here - "randon" instead of "random" ("m" replaced with "n").
>Group: Applications/System
The Group: tag is not used in Fedora.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections
>Source0:
>https://sourceforge.net/projects/pracrand/files/PractRand_%{version}.zip
This URL does not exist - there's only "PractRand-pre0.95.zip".
>BuildRequires: gcc, help2man, valgrind, dos2unix
>[...]
>g++ -c src/*.cpp src/RNGs/*.cpp src/RNGs/other/*.cpp -I include -std=c++11 -O3
>-g
/usr/bin/g++ is provided by the "gcc-c++" package, not "gcc".
You should probably also call %set_build_flags at the start of %build so
Fedora's CFLAGS and LDFLAGS are applied.
Also, since you're calling g++ directly, it might be good to leave a comment
saying that the upstream sources don't contain a Makefile (nor anything
similar).
>mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}
>cp -p doc/* %{buildroot}%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}
Reading through the Packaging Guidelines, I think you should use %{_pkgdocdir}
here instead of %{_defaultdocdir}.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_documentation
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review 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 1793041] Review Request: kf5-kquickcharts - A QtQuick module providing high-performance charts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793041 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-01-28 09:51:49 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1795526] Review Request: ghc-cborg - Concise Binary Object Representation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795526 --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen --- https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41123480 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1795526] New: Review Request: ghc-cborg - Concise Binary Object Representation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795526 Bug ID: 1795526 Summary: Review Request: ghc-cborg - Concise Binary Object Representation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: peter...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews//ghc-cborg.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews//ghc-cborg-0.2.1.0-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: This package (formerly 'binary-serialise-cbor') provides an efficient implementation of the Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR), as specified by [RFC 7049](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7049). If you are looking for a library for serialisation of Haskell values, have a look at the [serialise](/package/serialise) package, which is built upon this library. An implementation of the standard bijection between CBOR and JSON is provided by the [cborg-json](/package/cborg-json) package. Also see [cbor-tool](/package/cbor-tool) for a convenient command-line utility for working with CBOR data. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1776150] Review Request: ghc-either - Combinators for working with sums
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1776150 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-f3614f8dab has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f3614f8dab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1760617] Review Request: mmc - A GPU mesh-based Monte Carlo photon simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617 --- Comment #25 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- I just realised this was still WIP! Sorry about that! I'll report back in a day or two. It's back on my list now. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1795468] Review Request: mojo-executor - Execute other plugins within a maven plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795468 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795468] Review Request: mojo-executor - Execute other plugins within a maven plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795468 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- + package name is OK + license still OK + latest version + builds and installs OK + fedora-review and rpmlint are OK (one issue below) + R/BR/P look OK + %mvn_* macros are used - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: sonatype-oss-parent is deprecated, you must not depend on it. In general, this would be a problem. But since this is about bringing back an orphaned package that is required to keep other packages working, it seems appropriate to allow keeping of this dependency. Package is RE-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 1795467] Review Request: treelayout - Efficient and customizable tree layout algorithm in Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795467 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795467] Review Request: treelayout - Efficient and customizable tree layout algorithm in Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795467 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- + package name is OK + license still OK + latest version + builds and installs OK + fedora-review and rpmlint find no issues + R/BR/P look OK + %mvn_* macros are used Package is RE-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
