[Bug 1801352] Review Request: raysession - Ray Session is a GNU/Linux session manager for audio programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801352 --- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- *** Bug 1800994 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1800994] Review Request: raysession - Ray Session is a GNU/Linux session manager for audio programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800994 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INSUFFICIENT_DATA |DUPLICATE --- Comment #5 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- No need to open a new bug, just post the new links to the spec and srpm in the future. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1801352 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1801533] New: Review Request: memstrack - a memory allocation analyzer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801533 Bug ID: 1801533 Summary: Review Request: memstrack - a memory allocation analyzer Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: kas...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://gist.github.com/ryncsn/ed41a2d265ce6c897b1d87212a7a1754 SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kasong/nmxwv-software-collection/srpm-builds/01235706/memstrack-0-1.20200211git2b57bec.fc32.src.rpm Description: memstrack is a tool to analyze memory usage, it's very helpful to track down which component is using most memory during a period of time. I developed this tool during debugging some kdump OOM issues, and it has been very helpful for debugging OOM issues. I also maintain kexc-tools and kdump-anaconda-addon in Fedora. It's planed to integrate this tool with kexec-tools/kdump and provide an automatic OOM analyzing method, and any users could use it to analyze memory usage issue. Thanks for you attention. rpmlint info: # rpmlint memstrack-0-1.20200211git2b57bec.fc32.src.rpm # 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/kasong/nmxwv-software-collection/build/1235706/ Fedora Account System Username: kasong -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1801527] New: Review Request: golang-gopkg-redis-5 - type-safe Redis client for Golang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801527 Bug ID: 1801527 Summary: Review Request: golang-gopkg-redis-5 - type-safe Redis client for Golang Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: nath...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://nathans.fedorapeople.org/redis/golang-gopkg-redis-5.spec SRPM URL: https://nathans.fedorapeople.org/redis/golang-gopkg-redis-5-5.2.9-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: Type-safe Redis client for Golang. Fedora Account System Username: nathans -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1801013] Review Request: date - Date and time library based on the C++11/14/17 header
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801013 Aleksei Bavshin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-02-11 04:53:03 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1801522] New: Review Request: golang-github-otiai10-mint - The very minimum assertion for Golang testing framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801522 Bug ID: 1801522 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-otiai10-mint - The very minimum assertion for Golang testing framework 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-otiai10-mint.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/golang-github-otiai10-mint-1.3.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: The very minimum assertion for Golang testing framework. 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 1801519] New: Review Request: golang-github-google-licenseclassifier - A License Classifier
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801519 Bug ID: 1801519 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-google-licenseclassifier - A License Classifier 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-google-licenseclassifier.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/golang-github-google-licenseclassifier-0-0.1.20200211git9dfa8d8.fc33.src.rpm Description: The license classifier is a library and set of tools that can analyze text to determine what type of license it contains. It searches for license texts in a file and compares them to an archive of known licenses. These files could be, e.g., LICENSE files with a single or multiple licenses in it, or source code files with the license text in a comment. A "confidence level" is associated with each result indicating how close the match was. A confidence level of 1.0 indicates an exact match, while a confidence level of 0.0 indicates that no license was able to match the text. 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 1798796] Review Request: ocaml-ppxfind - Tool to apply OCaml ppx rewriters to a file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798796
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
(In reply to dan.cermak from comment #1)
> Thanks for submitting this, package is approved!
Thank you for the review, Dan!
> Stupid question though: why are ocaml-ppx-derivers-devel and
> ocaml-result-devel required? They are not mentioned in the opam file
> upstream.
I think they are both missing dependencies of ocaml-migrate-parsetree-devel.
I'm not sure of that, but if they are, I should file a bug on
ocaml-migrate-parsetree to get them added. Evidence:
%{_libdir}/ocaml/ocaml-migrate-parsetree/opam contains this:
depends: [
"result"
"ppx_derivers"
"dune" {build & >= "1.9.0"}
"ocaml" {>= "4.02.3"}
]
And %{_libdir}/ocaml/ocaml-migrate-parsetree/migrate_parsetree_ast_io.mli
contains "open Result". All I know for sure is that omitting those two BRs
leads to a build failure, with a message indicating certain files from their
-devel subpackages are missing.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review 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 1801516] Review Request: golang-github-google-monologue - Monitor that checks that Certificate Transparency Logs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801516 --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Koji scratch build: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1801516] New: Review Request: golang-github-google-monologue - Monitor that checks that Certificate Transparency Logs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801516 Bug ID: 1801516 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-google-monologue - Monitor that checks that Certificate Transparency Logs 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-google-monologue.spec SRPM URL: https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/for-review/golang-github-google-monologue-0-0.1.20200211git4b11a32.fc33.src.rpm Description: A monitor that checks that Certificate Transparency Logs are complying with RFC 6962 and the Chromium Certificate Transparency Log Policy. 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 1801013] Review Request: date - Date and time library based on the C++11/14/17 header
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801013 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/date -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1795076] Review Request: golang-github-anacrolix-log - Logging library for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795076 Matt Joiner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anacro...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Matt Joiner --- https://github.com/anacrolix/log/blob/master/LICENSE Is it compatible? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1763145] Review Request: golang-bug-serial-1 - Cross-platform serial library for Golang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763145 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d7593b0cd5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d7593b0cd5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1763147] Review Request: golang-github-creack-goselect - Select(2) implementation in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763147 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-creack-goselect-0.1.1-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-0d24924e33 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1800666] Review Request: golang-github-dchest-uniuri - generates random strings good for use in URIs to identify unique objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800666
Mark Goodwin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?
--- Comment #1 from Mark Goodwin ---
All good, except for one minor rpmlint error: summary line in spec is too long.
Also, this BZ blocks BZ 1800675 (which blocks other BZs) so the order is
important.
golang-github-dchest-uniuri-devel.noarch: E: summary-too-long C Go package
uniuri generates random strings good for use in URIs to identify unique objects
The "public domain" license matches upstream and is approved in the packageing
guidelines
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-]: %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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: 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]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor,
[Bug 1763147] Review Request: golang-github-creack-goselect - Select(2) implementation in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763147 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-creack-goselect-0.1.1-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-4ea6922f20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1800672] Review Request: golang-github-russellhaering-goxmldsig - Go implementation of XML Digital Signatures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800672
Mark Goodwin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags||fedora-review+
||needinfo?(agerstmayr@redhat
||.com)
--- Comment #1 from Mark Goodwin ---
Looks good, approved! (subject to blocking BZ 1800663 being resolved first)
Note in the review below, this new package has a BR on the new package
golang-github-beevik-etree-devel (BZ 1800663). So that BZ needs to be resolved
before this one (Depends On in this BZ is correctly set). In addition, new
packagegolang-github-crewjam-saml-devel (BZ 1800675) is blocked by this BZ due
to a BR.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-]: %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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: 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]: %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
[Bug 1800663] Review Request: golang-github-beevik-etree - Parse and generate XML easily in go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800663
Mark Goodwin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
||needinfo?(agerstmayr@redhat
||.com)
--- Comment #1 from Mark Goodwin ---
looks good. In the below review, there is only one issue: you've packaged
v1.0.1 whereas the latest upstream is tagged v1.1.0. Also, there is no %build
section (rpmlint complained), but I think that's OK since there is nothing to
build!
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/mgoodwin/src/fedora/reviews/1800663-golang-github-beevik-
etree/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-]: %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.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: 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]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc,
[Bug 1800858] Review Request: cmsis-pack-manager - Utils and a Python module for handling CMSIS Pack files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800858
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Add apache-2.0.txt to %license
%license LICENSE apache-2.0.txt
- Same error:
Download error on https://pypi.org/simple/setuptools_scm_git_archive/: [Errno
-2] Name or service not known -- Some packages may not be found!
Download error on https://pypi.org/simple/setuptools-scm-git-archive/: [Errno
-2] Name or service not known -- Some packages may not be found!
Couldn't find index page for 'setuptools_scm_git_archive' (maybe misspelled?)
Download error on https://pypi.org/simple/: [Errno -2] Name or service not
known -- Some packages may not be found!
No local packages or working download links found for
setuptools_scm_git_archive
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "setup.py", line 55, in
setup(
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/setuptools/__init__.py", line 144, in
setup
_install_setup_requires(attrs)
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/setuptools/__init__.py", line 139, in
_install_setup_requires
dist.fetch_build_eggs(dist.setup_requires)
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/setuptools/dist.py", line 717, in
fetch_build_eggs
resolved_dists = pkg_resources.working_set.resolve(
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 780,
in resolve
dist = best[req.key] = env.best_match(
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 1065,
in best_match
return self.obtain(req, installer)
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 1077,
in obtain
return installer(requirement)
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/setuptools/dist.py", line 787, in
fetch_build_egg
return cmd.easy_install(req)
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/setuptools/command/easy_install.py",
line 678, in easy_install
raise DistutilsError(msg)
distutils.errors.DistutilsError: Could not find suitable distribution for
Requirement.parse('setuptools_scm_git_archive')
RPM build errors:
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.sFf1bu (%build)
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.sFf1bu (%build)
Child return code was: 1
Add:
BuildRequires: python3-setuptools_scm_git_archive
Download error on https://pypi.org/simple/pytest-runner/: [Errno -2] Name or
service not known -- Some packages may not be found!
Couldn't find index page for 'pytest-runner' (maybe misspelled?)
Download error on https://pypi.org/simple/: [Errno -2] Name or service not
known -- Some packages may not be found!
No local packages or working download links found for pytest-runner
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "setup.py", line 55, in
setup(
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/setuptools/__init__.py", line 144, in
setup
_install_setup_requires(attrs)
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/setuptools/__init__.py", line 139, in
_install_setup_requires
dist.fetch_build_eggs(dist.setup_requires)
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/setuptools/dist.py", line 717, in
fetch_build_eggs
resolved_dists = pkg_resources.working_set.resolve(
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 780,
in resolve
dist = best[req.key] = env.best_match(
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 1065,
in best_match
return self.obtain(req, installer)
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 1077,
in obtain
return installer(requirement)
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/setuptools/dist.py", line 787, in
fetch_build_egg
return cmd.easy_install(req)
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/setuptools/command/easy_install.py",
line 678, in easy_install
raise DistutilsError(msg)
distutils.errors.DistutilsError: Could not find suitable distribution for
Requirement.parse('pytest-runner')
RPM build errors:
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.fMEN0v (%build)
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.fMEN0v (%build)
Child return code was: 1
Add:
BuildRequires: python3-pytest-runner
- Did you try running pack-manager? It doesn't work if you don't build the
Rust part:
$ pack-manager
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/bin/pack-manager", line 11, in
load_entry_point('cmsis-pack-manager==0.2.9', 'console_scripts',
'pack-manager')()
File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 489,
in load_entry_point
return get_distribution(dist).load_entry_point(group, name)
File "/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 2852,
in load_entry_point
return ep.load()
File
[Bug 1763147] Review Request: golang-github-creack-goselect - Select(2) implementation in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763147 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-0d24924e33 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-0d24924e33 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1643778] Review Request: pyOCD - Tool for programming and debugging Arm Cortex-M microcontrollers using CMSIS-DAP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643778
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- You haven't fixed any error I reported:
Download error on https://pypi.org/simple/setuptools_scm_git_archive/: [Errno
-2] Name or service not known -- Some packages may not be found!
Download error on https://pypi.org/simple/setuptools-scm-git-archive/: [Errno
-2] Name or service not known -- Some packages may not be found!
Couldn't find index page for 'setuptools_scm_git_archive' (maybe misspelled?)
Download error on https://pypi.org/simple/: [Errno -2] Name or service not
known -- Some packages may not be found!
No local packages or working download links found for
setuptools_scm_git_archive
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "setup.py", line 30, in
setup(
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/setuptools/__init__.py", line 144, in
setup
_install_setup_requires(attrs)
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/setuptools/__init__.py", line 139, in
_install_setup_requires
dist.fetch_build_eggs(dist.setup_requires)
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/setuptools/dist.py", line 717, in
fetch_build_eggs
resolved_dists = pkg_resources.working_set.resolve(
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 780,
in resolve
dist = best[req.key] = env.best_match(
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 1065,
in best_match
return self.obtain(req, installer)
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 1077,
in obtain
return installer(requirement)
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/setuptools/dist.py", line 787, in
fetch_build_egg
return cmd.easy_install(req)
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/setuptools/command/easy_install.py",
line 678, in easy_install
raise DistutilsError(msg)
distutils.errors.DistutilsError: Could not find suitable distribution for
Requirement.parse('setuptools_scm_git_archive')
RPM build errors:
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.rsguBw (%build)
Add:
BuildRequires: python3-setuptools_scm_git_archive
-
https://github.com/mbedmicro/pyOCD/archive/v%{version}%{?candidate:%{candidate}}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}%{?candidate:%{candidate}}.tar.gz
⇒
%url/archive/v%{version}%{?candidate:%{candidate}}/%{name}-%{version}%{?candidate:%{candidate}}.tar.gz
- Remove the shebangs:
pyOCD.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyOCD/tools/flash_tool.py /usr/bin/env python
pyOCD.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyOCD/tools/flash_tool.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python
pyOCD.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyOCD/tools/gdb_server.py /usr/bin/env python
pyOCD.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyOCD/tools/gdb_server.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python
pyOCD.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyOCD/tools/pyocd.py /usr/bin/env python
pyOCD.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/pyOCD/tools/pyocd.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review 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 1798796] Review Request: ocaml-ppxfind - Tool to apply OCaml ppx rewriters to a file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798796 dan.cer...@cgc-instruments.com 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 1798796] Review Request: ocaml-ppxfind - Tool to apply OCaml ppx rewriters to a file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798796
dan.cer...@cgc-instruments.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from dan.cer...@cgc-instruments.com ---
Thanks for submitting this, package is approved!
Stupid question though: why are ocaml-ppx-derivers-devel and ocaml-result-devel
required? They are not mentioned in the opam file upstream.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 9
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/dan/fedora-scm/1798796-ocaml-ppxfind/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/ocaml
[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 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[Bug 1763147] Review Request: golang-github-creack-goselect - Select(2) implementation in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763147 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-4ea6922f20 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-4ea6922f20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1798796] Review Request: ocaml-ppxfind - Tool to apply OCaml ppx rewriters to a file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798796 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 1801464] Review Request: mediawiki-lastmodified - Show the last modified page time
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801464
--- Comment #3 from Jerry James ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
The failure is because this package requires mediawiki version 1.33, but
version 1.33.1 is currently in Rawhide.
- Remove the first line of %install: "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT". See the 3rd
bullet item here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections
- Please ask upstream to add a license file (SHOULD)
- There have been 8 commits to the repository after the commit chosen for
this package (regarding the "latest version" question in the SHOULD section)
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: 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.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: 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 mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from
[Bug 1796263] Review Request: rust-rle-decode-fast - Fastest way to implement any kind of decoding for Run Length Encoded data in Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796263 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||decatho...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini --- - Latest version is packaged - License is correct - Package builds on rawhide - Built packages install on rawhide - Standard rust package One issue: The value for Summary is too long. Maybe replace it with "Fast implementation of Run-Length-Encoding in Rust" or something like that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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] Review Request: rust-float-ord - Total ordering for floating-point numbers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795840 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||decatho...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|decatho...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini --- - latest version is packaged - License correct - Package builds in rawhide - Built packages install in rawhide - standard rust package - only one issue I see: Can you provide a link to an upstream change or a pending PR for the patch to port to rand 0.7? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1643764] Review Request: intelhex - A python library for manipulating Intel HEX file format
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643764
--- Comment #13 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Fix line encoding:
intelhex.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/intelhex/AUTHORS.rst
intelhex.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/intelhex/NEWS.rst
- Remove the shebang in %prep:
python3-intelhex.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/intelhex/bench.py 644 /usr/bin/python
- Build the manual in docs/manual with Sphinx instead of distributing the
source files
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License". 40 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/intelhex/review-
intelhex/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 102400 bytes in 30 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-intelhex ,
[Bug 1801464] Review Request: mediawiki-lastmodified - Show the last modified page time
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801464 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James --- The binary package cannot be installed because of this line: Requires: mediawiki = 1.33 Rawhide currently has mediawiki 1.33.1, which does not satisfy this dependency. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1795413] Review Request: rust-time-macros-impl - Procedural macros for the time crate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795413 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||decatho...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|decatho...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini --- - License correct (pull request to ship LICENSE files with the sources was merged) - package builds in rawhide - binary packages install in rawhide - standard rust package, no issues I can see. Package APPROVED Can you review one of my pending rust packages in return? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1798797] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-tools - Tools for authors of ppx rewriters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798797 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||sanjay.an...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sanjay.an...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- I'll review this one. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1796268] Package review request - nodejs-p-try
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796268 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||sanjay.an...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sanjay.an...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- I'll review this one. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1801464] Review Request: mediawiki-lastmodified - Show the last modified page time
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801464 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jerry James --- I will take this 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 1801464] New: Review Request: mediawiki-lastmodified - Show the last modified page time
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801464 Bug ID: 1801464 Summary: Review Request: mediawiki-lastmodified - Show the last modified page time Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sanjay.an...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/mediawiki-lastmodified/mediawiki-lastmodified.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/mediawiki-lastmodified/mediawiki-lastmodified-0-0.1.20200210gitbe28231ebcd539fc99775811e5dc6df9064cfa94.fc32.src.rpm Description: The LastModified extension displays text on the page showing the last modified page time. Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1497482] Review Request: dnsviz - Tools for analyzing and visualizing DNS and DNSSEC behavior
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1497482 Jimm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bnnf-themexahorse@blurcompa ||ny.com --- Comment #9 from Jimm --- I've updated the spec to address your comments: Spec URL: https://casey.byu.edu/dnsviz/dnsviz.spec https://www.targetedwebtraffic.com/buy/buy-mobile-traffic https://www.seo25.com/product/buy-mobile-traffic-and-get-cheap-targeted-mobile-traffic Please let me know what you think. Cheers, Caseeey -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1801451] Review Request: multimarkdown - Lightweight markup processor to produce HTML, LaTeX, and more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801451 Lyes Saadi changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||multimarkdown -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1801451] New: Review Request: multimarkdown - Lightweight markup processor to produce HTML, LaTeX, and more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801451 Bug ID: 1801451 Summary: Review Request: multimarkdown - Lightweight markup processor to produce HTML, LaTeX, and more Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fed...@lyes.eu QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/multimarkdown/multimarkdown.spec SRPM URL: https://lyessaadi.fedorapeople.org/multimarkdown/multimarkdown-6.5.1-3.fc31.src.rpm Copr Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/lyessaadi/multimarkdown/build/1235140/ Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41452627 Description: MultiMarkdown is a superset of the Markdown lightweight markup syntax with support for additional output formats and features. Writing with MultiMarkdown allows you to separate the content and structure of your document from the formatting. You focus on the actual writing, without having to worry about making the styles of your chapter headers match, or ensuring the proper spacing between paragraphs. And with a little forethought, a single plain text document can easily be converted into multiple output formats without having to rewrite the entire thing or format it by hand. Even better, you don’t have to write in “computer-ese” to create well formatted HTML or LaTeX commands. You just write, MultiMarkdown takes care of the rest. Fedora Account System Username: lyessaadi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1801429] Review Request: rust-futures-timer - Timeouts and intervals for futures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801429 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini --- Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rust-futures-timer.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rust-futures-timer-0.1.1-3.fc31.src.rpm koji scratch build for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41452684 Bumped release to make it higher than what was last available from rawhide, and include the old changelog. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1801429] New: Review Request: rust-futures-timer - Timeouts and intervals for futures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801429 Bug ID: 1801429 Summary: Review Request: rust-futures-timer - Timeouts and intervals for futures Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: decatho...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rust-futures-timer.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rust-futures-timer-0.1.1-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: Timeouts and intervals for futures Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe Note: This is a re-review for the previously retired package of the same name. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1801426] Review Request: rust-tower-util - Utilities for working with `Service`
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801426 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1801425 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801425 [Bug 1801425] Review Request: rust-tower-test - Utilities for writing client and server `Service` tests -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1801426] New: Review Request: rust-tower-util - Utilities for working with `Service`
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801426 Bug ID: 1801426 Summary: Review Request: rust-tower-util - Utilities for working with `Service` Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: decatho...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rust-tower-util.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rust-tower-util-0.3.0-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: Utilities for working with `Service` Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe Note: This package depends on rust-tower-test, for which the review request is still pending. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1801425] Review Request: rust-tower-test - Utilities for writing client and server `Service` tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801425 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1801426 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801426 [Bug 1801426] Review Request: rust-tower-util - Utilities for working with `Service` -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1801425] Review Request: rust-tower-test - Utilities for writing client and server `Service` tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801425 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1800864 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800864 [Bug 1800864] Review Request: rust-tower-layer - Decorates a Service to allow easy composition -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1800864] Review Request: rust-tower-layer - Decorates a Service to allow easy composition
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800864 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1801425 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801425 [Bug 1801425] Review Request: rust-tower-test - Utilities for writing client and server `Service` tests -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1801425] New: Review Request: rust-tower-test - Utilities for writing client and server `Service` tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801425 Bug ID: 1801425 Summary: Review Request: rust-tower-test - Utilities for writing client and server `Service` tests Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: decatho...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rust-tower-test.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rust-tower-test-0.3.0-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: Utilities for writing client and server `Service` tests Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe Note: This package depends on rust-tower-layer, for which the review request is still pending. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1801422] Review Request: ocaml-stdint - Various signed and unsigned integers for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801422 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1801423 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801423 [Bug 1801423] Review Request: ocaml-zmq - ZeroMQ bindings for OCaml -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1801423] Review Request: ocaml-zmq - ZeroMQ bindings for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801423 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1801422 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801422 [Bug 1801422] Review Request: ocaml-stdint - Various signed and unsigned integers for OCaml -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1801421] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-deriving-yojson - JSON codec generator for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801421 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1798798 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798798 [Bug 1798798] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-deriving - Type-driven code generation for OCaml -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1798798] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-deriving - Type-driven code generation for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798798 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1801421 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801421 [Bug 1801421] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-deriving-yojson - JSON codec generator for OCaml -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1801421] New: Review Request: ocaml-ppx-deriving-yojson - JSON codec generator for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801421 Bug ID: 1801421 Summary: Review Request: ocaml-ppx-deriving-yojson - JSON codec generator for OCaml Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-ppx-deriving-yojson/ocaml-ppx-deriving-yojson.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-ppx-deriving-yojson/ocaml-ppx-deriving-yojson-3.5.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: Deriving_Yojson is a ppx_deriving plugin that generates JSON serializers and deserializers that use the Yojson library from an OCaml type definition. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1801422] New: Review Request: ocaml-stdint - Various signed and unsigned integers for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801422 Bug ID: 1801422 Summary: Review Request: ocaml-stdint - Various signed and unsigned integers for OCaml Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-stdint/ocaml-stdint.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-stdint/ocaml-stdint-0.6.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: The stdint library provides signed and unsigned integer types of various fixed widths: 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56, 64 and 128 bits. This interface is similar to Int32 and Int64 from the base library but provides more functions and constants like arithmetic and bit-wise operations, constants like maximum and minimum values, infix operators converting to and from every other integer type (including int, float and nativeint), parsing from and conversion to readable strings (binary, octal, decimal, hexadecimal), and conversion to and from buffers in both big endian and little endian byte order. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1801423] New: Review Request: ocaml-zmq - ZeroMQ bindings for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801423 Bug ID: 1801423 Summary: Review Request: ocaml-zmq - ZeroMQ bindings for OCaml Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-zmq/ocaml-zmq.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-zmq/ocaml-zmq-5.1.3-1.fc32.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This library contains basic OCaml bindings for ZeroMQ. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1801390] Review Request: jericho-html - Java library allowing analysis and manipulation of parts of an HTML document
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801390 Terje Røsten changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1799285 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1799285 [Bug 1799285] ditaa: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f32 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1801390] New: Review Request: jericho-html - Java library allowing analysis and manipulation of parts of an HTML document
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801390 Bug ID: 1801390 Summary: Review Request: jericho-html - Java library allowing analysis and manipulation of parts of an HTML document Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: terje...@phys.ntnu.no QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora spec: https://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/jericho-html/jericho-html.spec srpm: https://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/jericho-html/jericho-html-3.3-16.fc31.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41451080 desc: Jericho HTML Parser is a java library allowing analysis and manipulation of parts of an HTML document, including server-side tags, while reproducing verbatim any unrecognized or invalid HTML. It also provides high-level HTML form manipulation functions. user: terjeros Note: this is re-introduction of deprecated package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1794564] Review Request: babeltrace2 - A trace manipulation toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794564 Michael Jeanson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-02-10 18:50:03 --- Comment #5 from Michael Jeanson --- Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1801352] New: Review Request: raysession - Ray Session is a GNU/Linux session manager for audio programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801352 Bug ID: 1801352 Summary: Review Request: raysession - Ray Session is a GNU/Linux session manager for audio programs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: er...@ericheickmeyer.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://pagure.io/RaySession/raw/master/f/RaySession.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/eeickmeyer/RaySession/fedora-31-x86_64/01235034-raysession/raysession-0.8.3-1.fc31.noarch.rpm Description: Ray Session is a GNU/Linux session manager for audio programs as Ardour, Carla, QTractor, Non-Timeline, etc... It uses the same API as Non Session Manager, so programs compatible with NSM are also compatible with Ray Session. As Non Session Manager, the principle is to load together audio programs, then be able to save or close all documents together. Ray Session offers a little more: - Factory templates for NSM and LASH compatible applications - Possibility to save any client as template - Save session as template - Name files with a prettier way - remember if client was started or not - Abort session almost anytime - Change Main Folder of sessions on GUI - Possibility to KILL client if clean exit is too long - Open Session Folder button (open default file manager) Ray Session is being developed by houston, using Python3 and Qt5. Fedora Account System Username: eeickmeyer -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1800994] Review Request: raysession - Ray Session is a GNU/Linux session manager for audio programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800994 Erich Eickmeyer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |INSUFFICIENT_DATA Last Closed||2020-02-10 17:32:45 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1794564] Review Request: babeltrace2 - A trace manipulation toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794564 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/babeltrace2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1694894] Review Request: aeskeyfind - Locate 128-bit and 256-bit AES keys in a captured memory image
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694894 Michal Ambroz changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo? ||needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com ||) --- Comment #9 from Michal Ambroz --- Unfortunately the approval is 60+ days old and pagure won't let me to create the package. Please Robert, may I ask you for re-approval? Thank you Michal Ambroz -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1694894] Review Request: aeskeyfind - Locate 128-bit and 256-bit AES keys in a captured memory image
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694894 Michal Ambroz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review+ | |needinfo?(re...@seznam.cz) | --- Comment #8 from Michal Ambroz --- Hello, yes my fault ... I failed to process this and forgot about it with the Xmass frenzy. Here is the updated package. Unfortunately the approval is 60+ days old. Please Robert, may I ask you for re-approval? Spec URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/aeskeyfind.spec SRPM URL: http://rebus.fedorapeople.org/aeskeyfind-1.0-7.fc31.src.rpm Best regards Michal Ambroz -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1798513] Review Request: nanovna-saver - A tool for reading, displaying and saving data from the NanoVNA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798513 --- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Škarvada --- I am ready for review swap. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1763147] Review Request: golang-github-creack-goselect - Select(2) implementation in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763147 --- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-creack-goselect -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1798603] Review Request: ccls - Full featured C/C++/ObjC language server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798603 Christian Kellner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2020-02-10 12:46:49 --- Comment #2 from Christian Kellner --- (In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #1) > This already exists? > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ccls omg, yes, great! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1801013] Review Request: date - Date and time library based on the C++11/14/17 header
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801013
Till Hofmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Till Hofmann ---
Looks good, approved!
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Expat License", "Expat
License". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/thofmann/fedora/reviews/review-
date/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libtz ,
date-devel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Patches link to
[Bug 1800666] Review Request: golang-github-dchest-uniuri - generates random strings good for use in URIs to identify unique objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800666 Mark Goodwin changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mgood...@redhat.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 1800675] Review Request: golang-github-crewjam-saml - SAML library for go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800675 --- Comment #2 from Mark Goodwin --- ah, golang(github.com/dchest/uniuri) is up for rv too: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800666 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1800675] Review Request: golang-github-crewjam-saml - SAML library for go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800675 Mark Goodwin changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mgood...@redhat.com QA Contact|mgood...@redhat.com |extras...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #1 from Mark Goodwin --- rawhide test build failed with missing BR: golang(github.com/dchest/uniuri) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1800672] Review Request: golang-github-russellhaering-goxmldsig - Go implementation of XML Digital Signatures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800672 Mark Goodwin changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mgood...@redhat.com QA Contact|mgood...@redhat.com |extras...@fedoraproject.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1800663] Review Request: golang-github-beevik-etree - Parse and generate XML easily in go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800663 Mark Goodwin changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mgood...@redhat.com QA Contact|mgood...@redhat.com |extras...@fedoraproject.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1800672] Review Request: golang-github-russellhaering-goxmldsig - Go implementation of XML Digital Signatures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800672 Mark Goodwin changed: What|Removed |Added QA Contact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |mgood...@redhat.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 1800675] Review Request: golang-github-crewjam-saml - SAML library for go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800675 Mark Goodwin changed: What|Removed |Added QA Contact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |mgood...@redhat.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 1800663] Review Request: golang-github-beevik-etree - Parse and generate XML easily in go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800663 Mark Goodwin changed: What|Removed |Added QA Contact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |mgood...@redhat.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 1795771] Review Request: micronucleus - Flashing tool for USB devices with Micronucleus bootloader
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795771 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||projects...@smart.ms Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Raphael Groner --- Are you interested in a review swap? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1797301] Review Request: perl-Array-IntSpan - Handles arrays using integer ranges
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797301 --- Comment #4 from Jitka Plesnikova --- Sorry for delay. > License > FIX: Artistic 1.0 is not a valid license for Fedora > More info about it can be found > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Bad_Licenses -License:Artistic +License:GPL+ or Artistic Theis is not fix, because LICENSE, Makefile.PL and all *.pm files mention that the license is 'Artistic 1.0'. So, you have to contact upstream and ask them if they can change licensing for the module. > $ rpmlint ./perl-Array-IntSpan* > perl-Array-IntSpan.noarch: W: invalid-license Artistic > perl-Array-IntSpan.src: W: invalid-license Artistic > 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. > BuildRequires are ok > TODO: perl(:VERSION) can be removed, the dependency is used mainly for > Perl version constrain. Ok. Resolution: Not 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 1801088] Review request: usbguard-notifier - A tool for detecting usbguard policy and device presence changes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801088 Raphael Groner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||projects...@smart.ms --- Comment #1 from Raphael Groner --- Are you interested in a review swap? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1797301] Review Request: perl-Array-IntSpan - Handles arrays using integer ranges
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797301 --- Comment #3 from Sandro Mani --- @Jitka ping? :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1797524] Review Request: sourcextractor++ - A program that extracts a catalog of sources from astronomical images
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797524
--- Comment #5 from Alejandro Alvarez ---
In fact, there is a %check
%check
%{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/sourcextractor++ --help
I caught a problem in Elements when running on ppc64le thanks to this, in fact.
About the test suite, it is true there is one, but if I enable the compilation,
they will *all* get installed into the system (63 or so), and that's not
desirable.
I have reported that to Elements - the framework - and they have fixed this
issue for the next release, and I'll put them back in.
See:
https://github.com/astrorama/Elements/commit/ff8821acc6a4033d8a39fcdbc1755fdfbd5c214e
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review 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 1801088] New: Review request: usbguard-notifier - A tool for detecting usbguard policy and device presence changes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801088 Bug ID: 1801088 Summary: Review request: usbguard-notifier - A tool for detecting usbguard policy and device presence changes Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: alaka...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://www.stud.fit.vutbr.cz/~xlakat01/usbguard-notifier.spec SRPM URL: http://www.stud.fit.vutbr.cz/~xlakat01/usbguard-notifier-0.0.2-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: usbguard-notifier is a software framework mainly for detecting usbguard policy modifications as well as device presence changes. It's purpose is to create user-friendly notifications whenever a device is: - Plugged in/out - Allowed/blocked/rejected via usbguard command-line interface The biggest benefit of this project is that non-technical users can also easily know when the device they just plugged in is allowed or blocked by the usbguard framework. usbguard-notifier: https://github.com/Cropi/usbguard-notifier usbguard: https://github.com/USBGuard/usbguard/ Fedora Account System Username: alakatos -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1801013] Review Request: date - Date and time library based on the C++11/14/17 header
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801013 Till Hofmann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|thofm...@fedoraproject.org Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Till Hofmann --- Alright, let's stick with `date` then. I'll do a 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 1801074] New: Review Request: php-sebastian-finder-facade2 - Wrapper for Symfony Finder component version 2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801074 Bug ID: 1801074 Summary: Review Request: php-sebastian-finder-facade2 - Wrapper for Symfony Finder component version 2 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/sebastian/php-sebastian-finder-facade2.git/plain/php-sebastian-finder-facade2.spec?id=093822b831cf3e324574a8969210bf7f3f519b3f SRPM URL: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-sebastian-finder-facade2-2.0.0-1.remi.src.rpm Description: Convenience wrapper for Symfony's Finder component. Fedora Account System Username: remi New dependency on phpcov v7 Already reviewed, see bug #866463 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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
