[Bug 1804683] Review Request: plasma-thunderbolt - Plasma integration for controlling Thunderbolt devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804683
Brendan Early changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Brendan Early ---
> - Libraries do not follow naming conventions. I think the ones under
> qt5/plugins are fine, but I don't think that libkbolt is ok.
> See:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so_name_versioning
> - libkbolt should be a subpackage
> See:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_mixed_use_packages
>
> → Won't fix, libkbolt is a QML plugin, it's not meant to be used outside
> plasma-thunderbolt.
Sorry, I didn't notice the "this is not needed" exception for plugins in the
guidelines. I tried to find other kcm plugins putting libraries under /usr/lib.
I was only able to find kde-connect, which does version it's lib.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kde-connect/blob/master/f/kde-connect.spec#_161
> - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
> file-validate if there is such a file.
> → Won't fix, it's a service file for a KCM module, not for an application, it
> won't pass the validation
metadata.desktop passes validation with desktop-file-validate perfectly fine on
my system.
Approved. None of these blockers, but I still encourage you to ask upstream to
version the lib.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1810377] Review Request: f32-backgrounds - A set of default and supplemental wallpapers for Fedora 32
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1810377 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-03-10 01:56:23 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- desktop-backgrounds-32.0.0-3.fc32, f32-backgrounds-32.0.0-2.fc32, kde-settings-32.0-1.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1806539] Review Request: gnome-applets - Small applications for the GNOME panel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806539
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 ---
- Requires: hicolor-icon-theme
- Own:
/usr/share/gnome-panel, /usr/share/gnome-panel/applets
- Fix the changelog entry:
gnome-applets.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1:3.34.0-4
['3.34.0-4.fc33', '3.34.0-4']
- Split the doc into a noarch doc subpackage
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/help/ast, /usr/share/help/mk,
/usr/share/gnome-panel, /usr/share/gnome-panel/applets
[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.
[-]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
Note: No (noreplace) in %config
/etc/dbus-1/system.d/org.gnome.CPUFreqSelector.conf
[x]: 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]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 122880 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 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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]:
[Bug 1796271] Review Request: ocaml-lablgtk3 - OCaml interface to gtk3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796271 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i.uca...@gmail.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 1806544] Review Request: gnome-panel - GNOME Flashback panel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806544
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 ---
- Not needed:
%post
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor >&/dev/null || :
%postun
if [ $1 -eq 0 ]; then
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor >&/dev/null || :
gtk-update-icon-cache -q %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor >&/dev/null || :
fi
%posttrans
gtk-update-icon-cache -q %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor >&/dev/null || :
- Validate the .desktop file
- split /usr/share/help into a separate noarch doc package
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
- gtk-update-icon-cache must not be invoked in %post and %posttrans for
Fedora 26 and later.
Note: icons in gnome-panel
See:
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 256000 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 uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv,
[Bug 1809097] Review Request: php-marcusschwarz-lesserphp - a LESS compiler written in PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809097 --- Comment #6 from Artur Iwicki --- Should be ok now. spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/php-marcusschwarz-lesserphp-0.5.4-3.spec srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/php-marcusschwarz-lesserphp-0.5.4-3.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42361726 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1807224] Review Request: xsecurelock - X11 screen lock utility with security in mind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807224
--- Comment #2 from Sam P ---
Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/survient/xsecurelock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01299154-xsecurelock/xsecurelock.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/survient/xsecurelock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01299154-xsecurelock/xsecurelock-1.7.0-1.fc33.src.rpm
Thank you Zbigniew. I've corrected almost all of the items you outlined except
I'm having trouble with repeating the same file in %doc and %license,
specifically the LICENSE file itself. When I remove:
%doc LICENSE
from my spec file I get the following error:
Provides: xsecurelock = 1.7.0-1.fc31 xsecurelock(x86-64) = 1.7.0-1.fc31
Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <=
4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
Requires: /usr/bin/sh libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXcomposite.so.1()(64bit)
libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXfixes.so.3()(64bit) libXmuu.so.1()(64bit)
libXrandr.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.15)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.25)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.29)(64bit) libpam.so.0()(64bit)
libpam.so.0(LIBPAM_1.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Processing files: xsecurelock-debugsource-1.7.0-1.fc31.x86_64
Provides: xsecurelock-debugsource = 1.7.0-1.fc31
xsecurelock-debugsource(x86-64) = 1.7.0-1.fc31
Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <=
4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
Processing files: xsecurelock-debuginfo-1.7.0-1.fc31.x86_64
Provides: debuginfo(build-id) = 5f5e735d74e645e05110092c1286278060f9fa8c
debuginfo(build-id) = 62f6b46f8b836558d85c01ad1771c1556204f849
debuginfo(build-id) = 82184a458189f5e727be1815b691e743075d4117
debuginfo(build-id) = 9375a666b0fb5b5d229e75a13cae114096a64d08
debuginfo(build-id) = 9c0daf8e8593bbaf2a812a8cf08d8dc47e58bf7c
debuginfo(build-id) = c50911ffaee8d3a9f5f22ef5f371a0df72fe1ecf
debuginfo(build-id) = cde1278cec731a2ebdcbbfb180dd740ebe04c71e
xsecurelock-debuginfo = 1.7.0-1.fc31 xsecurelock-debuginfo(x86-64) =
1.7.0-1.fc31
Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <=
4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
Recommends: xsecurelock-debugsource(x86-64) = 1.7.0-1.fc31
Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/xsecurelock-1.7.0-1.fc31.x86_64
error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
/usr/share/doc/xsecurelock/LICENSE
RPM build errors:
Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
/usr/share/doc/xsecurelock/LICENSE
Finish: rpmbuild xsecurelock-1.7.0-1.fc31.src.rpm
Finish: build phase for xsecurelock-1.7.0-1.fc31.src.rpm
ERROR: Exception(./xsecurelock-1.7.0-1.fc31.src.rpm) Config(fedora-31-x86_64) 0
minutes 33 seconds
INFO: Results and/or logs in: ./
INFO: Cleaning up build root ('cleanup_on_failure=True')
Start: clean chroot
Finish: clean chroot
ERROR: Command failed:
# /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M cca504938969409e9708389a4ec73f78 -D
/var/lib/mock/fedora-31-x86_64/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock
--bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.tuas78fo:/etc/resolv.conf --setenv=TERM=vt100
--setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/builddir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock
--setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin --setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf
"\033]0;\007" --setenv=PS1= \s-\v\$
--setenv=LANG=en_US.utf8 -u mockbuild bash --login -c /usr/bin/rpmbuild -bb
--target x86_64 --nodeps /builddir/build/originals/xsecurelock.spec
It does appear to be a new TLD, it resolves against the caching nameserver I'm
using. I can switch it to the github page if needed. Appreciate the guidance
and assistance.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1803479] Review Request: libredwg-0.10.1 - new package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803479
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Not needed
%post
/sbin/ldconfig
/sbin/install-info %{_infodir}/LibreDWG.info %{_infodir}/dir || :
%preun
if [ $1 = 0 ] ; then
/sbin/install-info --delete %{_infodir}/LibreDWG.info %{_infodir}/dir || :
fi
%ldconfig_postun
- Add python provide macro
%package -n python3-LibreDWG
Summary:Python bindings for %{name}
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-LibreDWG}
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}, python
- Use ExclusiveArch rather than ExcludeArch
- Add comment explaining why each patch is needed
- #autopatch is broken
Really? What's the issue?
- Add anew line between your changelog entries
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1023776] Review Request: eclus - An Erlang Port Mapping Daemon service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023776
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Please follow Go packaging guidelines for binaries:
# Generated by go2rpm 1
%bcond_without check
# https://github.com/goerlang/eclus
%global goipath github.com/goerlang/eclus
%global commit 5efcbfc98a5caa9af3e81d4ba8f938efcfdc8802
%gometa
%global common_description %{expand:
Erlang EPMD replacement and example of node.}
%global golicenses LICENSE
%global godocs README.md
Name: %{goname}
Version:0
Release:0.1%{?dist}
Summary:Erlang EPMD replacement and example of node
License:MIT
URL:%{gourl}
Source0:%{gosource}
BuildRequires: golang(github.com/coreos/go-systemd/activation)
BuildRequires: golang(github.com/goerlang/epmd)
BuildRequires: golang(github.com/goerlang/etf)
BuildRequires: golang(github.com/goerlang/node)
BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros
%description
%{common_description}
%prep
%goprep
%build
for cmd in src/eclus; do
%gobuild -o %{gobuilddir}/bin/$(basename $cmd) %{goipath}/$cmd
done
%install
install -m 0755 -vd %{buildroot}%{_bindir}
install -m 0755 -vp %{gobuilddir}/bin/* %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/
install -D -p -m 0644 %{name}.service %{buildroot}%{_unitdir}/%{name}.service
install -D -p -m 0644 %{name}.socket %{buildroot}%{_unitdir}/%{name}.socket
%post
%systemd_post %{name}.service
%preun
%systemd_preun %{name}.service
%postun
%systemd_postun %{name}.service
%files
%license LICENSE
%doc README.md
%{_bindir}/*
%{_unitdir}/%{name}.service
%{_unitdir}/%{name}.socket
%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 1805928] Review Request: elementary-planner - Task manager with Todoist support designed for GNU/Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805928
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Bump to 2.2.14
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v2 or
later)". 304 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/elementary-planner/review-
elementary-planner/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/locale/mo/LC_MESSAGES,
/usr/share/locale/mo
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for
[Bug 1807224] Review Request: xsecurelock - X11 screen lock utility with security in mind
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807224 Sam P changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: xscreenlock |Review Request: xsecurelock |- X11 screen lock utility |- X11 screen lock utility |with security in mind |with security in mind -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1805854] Review Request: wsdd - Web Services Dynamic Discovery host daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805854 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||zebo...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Last Closed||2020-03-09 22:11:56 --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- I reviewed this for you already! *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1780709 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1780709] Review Request: wsdd - Web Services Dynamic Discovery host daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1780709 --- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin --- *** Bug 1805854 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 1790100] Review Request: python-magic - File type identification using libmagic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1790100
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved but please coordinate with the file maintainer for the rename.
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", "Expat License". 16 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-magic/review-python-
magic/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify
[Bug 1805745] Review Request: python-cloudscraper - Python module to bypass Cloudflare's anti-bot page
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805745
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Bump to 1.2.26
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 23 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-cloudscraper/review-python-
cloudscraper/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[Bug 1748956] Review Request: python-dateparser - A Python parser for human readable dates
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748956
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com |zebo...@gmail.com
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Fix changelog entry
warning: bogus date in %changelog: Thu Nov 19 2019 Fabian Affolter
- 0.7.2-4
- Bump to 0.7.4 and activate tests (they pass)
Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 676 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-dateparser/review-python-
dateparser/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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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
[Bug 1805765] Review Request: komikku - Online/offline manga reader for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805765
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Own this dir:
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/komikku
Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
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.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU General Public
License (v3)", "GPL (v3 or later)". 134 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/komikku/review-komikku/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/komikku
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain
[Bug 1809097] Review Request: php-marcusschwarz-lesserphp - a LESS compiler written in PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809097 --- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- For rpm, 0.5.0-11.fc32 is newer than 0.5.0. This can be checked with $ rpmdev-vercmp 0.5.0 0.5.0-11.fc32 0.5.0 < 0.5.0-11.fc32 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1802377] Review Request: libretro-gw - Libretro core for Game & Watch simulators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1802377 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-190980d107 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-190980d107 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1805761] Review Request: python-pure-protobuf - Python implementation of Protocol Buffers data types with dataclasses support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805761
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Please remove shebangs in prep:
python3-pure-protobuf.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pure_protobuf/__init__.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python3
python3-pure-protobuf.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/pure_protobuf/dataclasses_.py 644 /usr/bin/env
python3
Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 26 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-pure-protobuf/review-python-pure-
protobuf/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.8/site-
packages/tests(python3-netssh2, python3-ipmi)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 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 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
[Bug 1802377] Review Request: libretro-gw - Libretro core for Game & Watch simulators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1802377 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-bb0d4b51d1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bb0d4b51d1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1804257] Review Request: swing-layout - Swing Extensions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804257 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-03-09 20:54:54 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- swing-layout-1.0.4-18.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1801088] Review request: usbguard-notifier - A tool for detecting usbguard policy and device presence changes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801088 --- Comment #12 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/usbguard-notifier -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800768] Review Request: php-phpunit-php-timer3 - PHP Utility class for timing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800768 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- php-phpunit-php-timer3-3.0.0-1.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-afdbb77495 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800773] Review Request: php-sebastian-diff4 - Diff implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800773 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- php-sebastian-diff4-4.0.0-1.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-2020-52a556d436 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800772] Review Request: php-sebastian-version3 - Managing the version number of Git-hosted PHP projects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800772 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- php-sebastian-version3-3.0.0-1.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-c11a7b17fa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800779] Review Request: php-sebastian-environment5 - Handle HHVM/PHP environments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800779 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- php-sebastian-environment5-5.0.1-1.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-2020-106bfc7edd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800767] Review Request: php-phpunit-php-text-template2 - Simple template engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800767 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- php-phpunit-php-text-template2-2.0.0-1.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-2020-7930dd1a03 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800775] Review Request: php-sebastian-recursion-context4 - Recursively process PHP variables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800775 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- php-sebastian-recursion-context4-4.0.0-1.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-ba23cb0f15 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800777] Review Request: php-sebastian-code-unit-reverse-lookup2 - Looks up which function or method a line of code belongs to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800777 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- php-sebastian-code-unit-reverse-lookup2-2.0.0-1.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-abd1fd544c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800764] Review Request: php-phpunit-php-token-stream4 - Wrapper around PHP tokenizer extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800764 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- php-phpunit-php-token-stream4-4.0.0-1.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-2020-2b2dbd600d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800760] Review Request: php-phpunit-php-invoker3 - Invoke callables with a timeout
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800760 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- php-phpunit-php-invoker3-3.0.0-1.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-c3451b2d50 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800759] Review Request: php-phpunit-php-file-iterator3 - FilterIterator implementation that filters files based on a list of suffixes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800759 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- php-phpunit-php-file-iterator3-3.0.0-1.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-2020-3957260a74 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1802377] Review Request: libretro-gw - Libretro core for Game & Watch simulators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1802377 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libretro-gw -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1808351] Review Request: dsp - An audio processing program with an interactive mode
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808351 Breno changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |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 1808351] Review Request: dsp - An audio processing program with an interactive mode
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808351 --- Comment #4 from Breno --- You're right Nikola, it seems all good. Thanks, and I'm sorry for taking longer than expected to review it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1809644] Review Request: preproc - very simple preprocessing language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809644 --- Comment #15 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/preproc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1810902] Review Request: rpkg-macros - Set of preproc macros for rpm packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1810902 --- Comment #15 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rpkg-macros -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1811432] Review Request: preproc-rpmspec - Minimalistic tool for rpm spec-file preprocessing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811432 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/preproc-rpmspec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1804353] Review Request: golang-github-majek-slirpnetstack - Slirp4netns implementation using gvisor/netstack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804353
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
You can't just make test otherwise it will try to use Go modules and d/l them
from the Internet:
Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.TUac3t
+ umask 022
+ cd /builddir/build/BUILD
+ cd slirpnetstack-0a03a89da63bd3005cd0c7d79ef94df27a7e6dc9
+ make test
go build \
-ldflags=-compressdwarf=false \
-o bin/slirpnetstack \
github.com/majek/slirpnetstack
go: github.com/cenkalti/backoff@v2.2.1+incompatible: git init --bare in
/builddir/go/pkg/mod/cache/vcs/67dac28e7e926ddaff06539613873fa20b08241cfbcc77568fece8103664e7ea:
exec: "git": executable file not found in $PATH
export
GOPATH=%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/gocode:%{_datadir}/gocode:${GOPATH:+${GOPATH}}
export GO111MODULE=off
make test
Most tests then fail:
Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.pWLrLt
+ umask 022
+ cd /builddir/build/BUILD
+ cd slirpnetstack-0a03a89da63bd3005cd0c7d79ef94df27a7e6dc9
+ export
GOPATH=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/golang-github-majek-slirpnetstack-0-1.20200309git0a03a89.fc33.x86_64/usr/share/gocode:/usr/share/gocode:
+
GOPATH=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/golang-github-majek-slirpnetstack-0-1.20200309git0a03a89.fc33.x86_64/usr/share/gocode:/usr/share/gocode:
+ export GO111MODULE=off
+ GO111MODULE=off
+ make test
go build \
-ldflags=-compressdwarf=false \
-o bin/slirpnetstack \
github.com/majek/slirpnetstack
go build -o bin/mocktcpecho github.com/majek/slirpnetstack/tests/mocktcpecho
go build -o bin/mockudpecho github.com/majek/slirpnetstack/tests/mockudpecho
SLIRPNETSTACKBIN="./bin/slirpnetstack" \
PYTHONPATH=. \
PYTHONIOENCODING=utf-8 \
unshare -Ur python3 -m tests.runner tests
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
Fsh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
Fsh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
Fsh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
.sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
.sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
Fsh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
Fsh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
Esh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
Fsh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
Fsh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
Fsh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
Fsh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
Fsh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
Fsh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip: command not found
sh: ip:
[Bug 1809097] Review Request: php-marcusschwarz-lesserphp - a LESS compiler written in PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809097 --- Comment #4 from Artur Iwicki --- >Obsoletes is wrong: php-lessphp-0.5.0-11.fc32 is the latest, so you need >something like >Obsoletes: php-lessphp < 0.5.0+0 I'm sorry, I don't quite understand. I want the package to be marked as obsoleting "php-lessphp" v0.5.0 and older. Is not not the proper way to do it? >$ /usr/bin/plessc >PHP Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Class 'lessc' not found in /usr/bin/plessc:47 Oopsie daisy. Gonna take a look immediately. Thanks for catching this! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1808023] Review Request: python-git-url-parse - A simple GIT URL parser similar to giturlparse.py
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808023 --- Comment #7 from cli...@gmail.com --- @chedi No problem. I was happy to do it! Cheers! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1808023] Review Request: python-git-url-parse - A simple GIT URL parser similar to giturlparse.py
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808023 --- Comment #6 from chedi toueiti --- @clime Yes it is, thanks again for taking the time for the review :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1803059] Review Request: hfg-gmuend-openmoji-color-fonts - Emojis with a line-drawn style
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803059 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Can you update your packages with the new guidelines? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1808023] Review Request: python-git-url-parse - A simple GIT URL parser similar to giturlparse.py
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808023 --- Comment #5 from cli...@gmail.com --- Btw. I was testing on https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/chedi/python-packages/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01297175-python-git-url-parse/ hope that is the latest version... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1808023] Review Request: python-git-url-parse - A simple GIT URL parser similar to giturlparse.py
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808023
cli...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from cli...@gmail.com ---
No issues found. PACKAGE APPROVED.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 29 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/clime/copr-
build-1297175/review-python-git-url-parse/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/lib/python3.8,
/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[-]: 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:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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-git-url-parse
[x]: Package functions
[Bug 1802377] Review Request: libretro-gw - Libretro core for Game & Watch simulators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1802377
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[-]: 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", "zlib/libpng license", "BSD 3-clause
"New" or "Revised" License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "Expat
License". 465 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libretro-gw/review-
libretro-gw/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/libretro(libretro-
prosystem, libretro-handy, libretro-desmume2015, libretro-beetle-vb,
libretro-gambatte, libretro-beetle-pce-fast, libretro-mgba, libretro-
beetle-ngp, libretro-nestopia, libretro-stella2014, libretro-pcsx-
rearmed, libretro-bsnes-mercury, libretro-beetle-wswan)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 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 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.
[Bug 1795771] Review Request: micronucleus - Flashing tool for USB devices with Micronucleus bootloader
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795771
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Please use -pm 0755:
install -pm 0755 micronucleus %{buildroot}%{_bindir}
Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or
"Revised" License". 120 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/micronucleus/review-
micronucleus/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.
[-]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
[Bug 1808023] Review Request: python-git-url-parse - A simple GIT URL parser similar to giturlparse.py
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808023 cli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|ABIAssurance| -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1807945] Review Request: python-gilt - gilt is a GIT layering tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807945 cli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cli...@gmail.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 1807945] Review Request: python-gilt - gilt is a GIT layering tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807945 cli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1807945] Review Request: python-gilt - gilt is a GIT layering tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807945 cli...@gmail.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 1808351] Review Request: dsp - An audio processing program with an interactive mode
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808351 --- Comment #3 from Nikola Forró --- Yes, just like the guidelines suggest: > A comment right above the License: field there is such comment on line 6 of the spec file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1808023] Review Request: python-git-url-parse - A simple GIT URL parser similar to giturlparse.py
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808023 cli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ABIAssurance CC||cli...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cli...@gmail.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 1808351] Review Request: dsp - An audio processing program with an interactive mode
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808351 --- Comment #2 from Breno --- Hi I can see that you're using multiple licenses in this package, right? In the git repository, all I see is ISC. According to the guidelines[1], the package must contain a comment explaining the multiple licensing breakdown. I know that you have said what licenses are, but It seems that it's a must that you explain the breakdown. More info in this [1] document. 1 https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1811485] Review Request: non-daw - Digital Audio Workstation for Jack
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811485
Guido Aulisi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||guido.aul...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Guido Aulisi ---
Happy to see this package unretired, I add some quick findings:
1) To fix python shebangs you can use:
BuildRequires: %{_bindir}/pathfix.py
...
%prep
...
# Fix unversioned python shebangs
pathfix.py -pni %{_bindir}/python3 waf wscript ...
2) Your are not settings LDFLAGS, you could add this macro (%set_build_flags)
that sets all flags, then add custom ones, and maybe this is more readable:
>%build
>%ifarch %{ix86} x86_64
>CXXFLAGS="%{optflags} -std=c++11" ./waf configure --prefix=%{_prefix}
>--libdir=%{_libdir}
>%else
>CXXFLAGS="%{optflags} -std=c++11" ./waf configure --prefix=%{_prefix}
>--libdir=%{_libdir} --disable-sse
>%endif
%build
%set_build_flags
CXXFLAGS+=" -std=c++11" // I thinks g++ defaults to c++11 so it could be
omitted
./waf configure --prefix=%{_prefix} --libdir=%{_libdir} \
%ifarch %{ix86} x86_64
%else
--disable-sse
%endif
3) Use license tag
>%doc COPYING
%license COPYING
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1811777] New: Review Request: rubygem-puppet-resource_api - This library provides a simple way to write new native resources for puppet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811777 Bug ID: 1811777 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-puppet-resource_api - This library provides a simple way to write new native resources for puppet Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: brand...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/skywalkerz0r/rubygem-puppet-resource_api/epel8/rubygem-puppet-resource_api.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/brandfbb/puppet6-stable-el8-fedora/epel-8-x86_64/01298876-rubygem-puppet-resource_api/rubygem-puppet-resource_api-1.8.12-1.el8.src.rpm Description: This library provides a simple way to write new native resources for puppet. Fedora Account System Username: brandfbb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1811775] New: Review Request: rubygem-semantic_puppet - Useful tools for working with Semantic Versions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811775 Bug ID: 1811775 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-semantic_puppet - Useful tools for working with Semantic Versions Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: brand...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/skywalkerz0r/rubygem-semantic_puppet/epel8/rubygem-semantic_puppet.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/brandfbb/puppet6-stable-el8-fedora/epel-8-x86_64/01298879-rubygem-semantic_puppet/rubygem-semantic_puppet-1.0.2-1.el8.src.rpm Description: Tools used by Puppet to parse, validate, and compare Semantic Versions and Version Ranges and to query and resolve module dependencies. Fedora Account System Username: brandfbb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1811774] New: Review Request: rubygem-puppetserver-ca - A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811774 Bug ID: 1811774 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-puppetserver-ca - A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: brand...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/skywalkerz0r/rubygem-puppetserver-ca/epel8/rubygem-puppetserver-ca.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/brandfbb/puppet6-stable-el8-fedora/epel-8-x86_64/01298868-rubygem-puppetserver-ca/rubygem-puppetserver-ca-1.5.0-1.el8.src.rpm Description: A simple CLI tool for interacting with Puppet Server's Certificate Authority. Fedora Account System Username: brandfbb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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
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 ---
- Fix the obsolete FSF address and send the patch upstream:
multimarkdown.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/mmd6/mmd-envelope.sty
multimarkdown.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/mmd6/mmd-letterhead.sty
- Please add a comment explaining the license breakdown
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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", "zlib/libpng license Expat License",
"zlib/libpng license", "Expat License", "BSD (unspecified)", "BSD
3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "GPL (v2 or later) (with
incorrect FSF address)". 551 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/multimarkdown/review-
multimarkdown/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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 624640 bytes in 10 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not
[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
Kairui Song changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Kairui Song ---
Looks good to me in every way now, thanks for the spec update.
Some issues reported by review tool should be ignored as this package uses user
instance services which confuse the linter.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- systemd_user_post is invoked in %post and systemd_user_preun in %preun
for Systemd user units service files.
Note: Systemd user unit service file(s) in usbguard-notifier
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units
= 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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Expat License",
"FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License
(v2)", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)", "*No copyright* Boost
Software License (v1.0) Boost Software License 1.0", "Boost Software
License (v1.0)", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License (v3.0)",
"*No copyright* Boost Software License (v1.0)". 184 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/kasong/fedpkg/review/review-usbguard-notifier/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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files
[Bug 1801421] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-deriving-yojson - JSON codec generator for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801421 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Bump to 3.5.2 (and drop patch) - Build fails: + dune runtest File "test_ppx_yojson.cppo.ml", line 20, characters 2-17: Error: Unbound value M.show_error_or -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1809097] Review Request: php-marcusschwarz-lesserphp - a LESS compiler written in PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809097
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Obsoletes is wrong: php-lessphp-0.5.0-11.fc32 is the latest, so you need
something like
Obsoletes: php-lessphp < 0.5.0+0
Including the version in the spec file name seems wrong.
+ package name is OK (please rename the spec file)
+ latest version
+ license is acceptable (MIT (or GPLv3))
+ license is specified correctly
+ build and installs OK
+ fedora-review and rpmlint seem happy
+ Provides/Requires/BuildRequires look OK
rpmlint says:
E: description-line-too-long C It is designed to be compatible with less.js
(https://lesscss.org/), and suitable
→ please wrap.
php-marcusschwarz-lesserphp.src:65: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces:
line 1, tab: line 65)
$ /usr/bin/plessc
PHP Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Class 'lessc' not found in /usr/bin/plessc:47
Stack trace:
#0 {main}
thrown in /usr/bin/plessc on line 47
→ that doesn't seem right :(
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800779] Review Request: php-sebastian-environment5 - Handle HHVM/PHP environments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800779 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-106bfc7edd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-106bfc7edd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800779] Review Request: php-sebastian-environment5 - Handle HHVM/PHP environments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800779 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-cec0e4e0eb has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-cec0e4e0eb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795360] Review Request: dhcpd-pools - ISC dhcpd lease analysis and reporting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795360 --- Comment #2 from Chris Adams --- Thanks for taking a look. I've fixed the %files and %make_install notes. I've added a temporary patch for the gnulib issue (if that's acceptable - it'll have to be removed once gnulib is fixed or this will fail to rebuild), and then found that gnulib also needs -std=c99 on EPEL7. Spec URL: https://cmadams.fedorapeople.org/dhcpd-pools/dhcpd-pools.spec SRPM URL: https://cmadams.fedorapeople.org/dhcpd-pools/dhcpd-pools-3.0-2.fc31.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800777] Review Request: php-sebastian-code-unit-reverse-lookup2 - Looks up which function or method a line of code belongs to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800777 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-61e0776c9a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-61e0776c9a -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800777] Review Request: php-sebastian-code-unit-reverse-lookup2 - Looks up which function or method a line of code belongs to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800777 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-abd1fd544c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-abd1fd544c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800775] Review Request: php-sebastian-recursion-context4 - Recursively process PHP variables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800775 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-ba23cb0f15 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-ba23cb0f15 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800775] Review Request: php-sebastian-recursion-context4 - Recursively process PHP variables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800775 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-62dea3cff0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-62dea3cff0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800773] Review Request: php-sebastian-diff4 - Diff implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800773 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-52a556d436 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-52a556d436 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800773] Review Request: php-sebastian-diff4 - Diff implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800773 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-10e1510533 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-10e1510533 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1810902] Review Request: rpkg-macros - Set of preproc macros for rpm packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1810902 chedi toueiti changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from chedi toueiti --- @clime this is good to go, I'll be waiting for your review here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808023 PS: to finish your review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807945 you have to: - take the bug - change the flag to + - change the bug status to POST -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800768] Review Request: php-phpunit-php-timer3 - PHP Utility class for timing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800768 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-195d7fccde has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-195d7fccde -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800768] Review Request: php-phpunit-php-timer3 - PHP Utility class for timing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800768 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-afdbb77495 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-afdbb77495 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1810902] Review Request: rpkg-macros - Set of preproc macros for rpm packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1810902 --- Comment #13 from cli...@gmail.com --- Here are the builds (rawhide) with the shebang removed: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/clime/rpkg-macros/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01298916-rpkg-macros/rpkg-macros.spec https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/clime/rpkg-macros/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01298916-rpkg-macros/rpkg-macros-0.3.git.3.9ac3009-1.fc33.src.rpm The result of builds can be found here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/clime/rpkg-macros/build/1298916/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Eclipse Public License
(v1.0)", "*No copyright* Eclipse Public License", "Eclipse Public
License (v1.0)". 182 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/jericho-html/review-
jericho-html/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: 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 215040 bytes in 60 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package 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
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of
[Bug 1810902] Review Request: rpkg-macros - Set of preproc macros for rpm packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1810902 --- Comment #12 from cli...@gmail.com --- @chedi if you look at e.g. /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d, there are plenty non-executable files or all the files under /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages. The files that rpkg-macros provide are libraries so /usr/libexec is not a good place imho. /usr/share I recognize as a place for man pages and various assets like fonts, icons etc. Imho, /usr/lib is a place for noarch libraries that are needed by executables under /usr/bin, which is a case here. https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/ch04s06.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1802102] Review Request: php-phpdocumentor-reflection-docblock5 - DocBlock parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1802102 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-phpdocumentor-reflection-docblock5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1809947] Review Request: php-phpmyadmin-motranslator5 - Translation API for PHP using Gettext MO files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809947 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-phpmyadmin-motranslator5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800791] Review Request: phpunit9 - The PHP Unit Testing framework version 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800791 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/phpunit9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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] Review Request: php-sebastian-finder-facade2 - Wrapper for Symfony Finder component version 2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801074 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-sebastian-finder-facade2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1802102] Review Request: php-phpdocumentor-reflection-docblock5 - DocBlock parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1802102
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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", "Expat License". 93 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/php-phpdocumentor-reflection-
docblock5/review-php-phpdocumentor-reflection-
docblock5/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/php/phpDocumentor/Reflection(php-phpdocumentor-reflection-
docblock, php-phpdocumentor-reflection-docblock4, php-phpdocumentor-
reflection-docblock2, php-phpdocumentor-reflection-common)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer
[Bug 1809947] Review Request: php-phpmyadmin-motranslator5 - Translation API for PHP using Gettext MO files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809947
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later)". 30 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/php-phpmyadmin-motranslator5/review-php-
phpmyadmin-motranslator5/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/php/PhpMyAdmin(php-phpmyadmin-shapefile, php-phpmyadmin-
motranslator)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not
[Bug 1800767] Review Request: php-phpunit-php-text-template2 - Simple template engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800767 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7930dd1a03 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7930dd1a03 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800791] Review Request: phpunit9 - The PHP Unit Testing framework version 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800791 Robert-André Mauchin 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 1810902] Review Request: rpkg-macros - Set of preproc macros for rpm packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1810902 --- Comment #11 from chedi toueiti --- @clime To my knowledge /usr/lib is meant for 32bit architecture but you can store noarch scripts in it. So there is nothing forbidding it as long as they are libraries or executable scripts for example the rpm package have scripts under it /usr/lib/rpm/find-debuginfo.sh /usr/lib/rpm/find-lang.sh /usr/lib/rpm/libtooldeps.sh /usr/lib/rpm/ocaml-find-provides.sh /usr/lib/rpm/ocaml-find-requires.sh /usr/lib/rpm/pkgconfigdeps.sh but all those are standalone executables. (which is not your case) On the other hand /usr/libexec is architecture agnostic, and should only be used as the directory for executable programs that are designed primarily to be run by other programs rather than by users (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_libexecdir), which is very close to the your use case but in the same time is sourcing really executing ??(you'll have to add the exec permission) and finnally there is /usr/share but you'll have to remove the shebang. I think you should move your files to either /usr/share or /usr/libexec, it's up to you to decide between removing the shebang or adding the exec bit. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800791] Review Request: phpunit9 - The PHP Unit Testing framework version 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800791 --- Comment #3 from Remi Collet --- Thanks for the review, and all the reviews of all dependencies ! btw, can you please set the review+ flag ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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] Review Request: php-sebastian-finder-facade2 - Wrapper for Symfony Finder component version 2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801074
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License",
"*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 12 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/php-sebastian-finder-facade2/review-php-
sebastian-finder-facade2/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/php/SebastianBergmann(php-phpunit-FinderFacade, php-
sebastian-type, php-sebastian-code-unit-reverse-lookup, php-sebastian-
diff2, php-sebastian-diff3, php-phpunit-php-timer2, php-sebastian-
object-reflector, php-sebastian-resource-operations, php-sebastian-
resource-operations2, php-phpunit-diff, php-sebastian-recursion-
context3, php-sebastian-environment3, php-phpunit-php-token-stream3,
php-phpunit-php-token-stream2, php-phpunit-git, php-sebastian-global-
state, php-phpunit-environment, php-sebastian-environment4, php-
phpunit-php-invoker2, php-sebastian-recursion-context, php-phpunit-
PHPUnit-SkeletonGenerator, php-phpunit-php-file-iterator2, php-
sebastian-global-state2, php-phpunit-Version)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files
[Bug 1800764] Review Request: php-phpunit-php-token-stream4 - Wrapper around PHP tokenizer extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800764 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-bb036faa85 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bb036faa85 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800787] Review Request: php-sebastian-comparator4 - Compare PHP values for equality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800787 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-sebastian-comparator4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800760] Review Request: php-phpunit-php-invoker3 - Invoke callables with a timeout
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800760 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7ad012dd08 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7ad012dd08 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800773] Review Request: php-sebastian-diff4 - Diff implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800773 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-sebastian-diff4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800788] Review Request: php-sebastian-global-state4 - Snapshotting of global state
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800788 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-sebastian-global-state4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800791] Review Request: phpunit9 - The PHP Unit Testing framework version 9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800791
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License",
"*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 1061 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/phpunit9/review-phpunit9/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
[Bug 1800786] Review Request: php-sebastian-exporter4 - Export PHP variables for visualization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800786 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-sebastian-exporter4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800789] Review Request: php-sebastian-object-enumerator4 - Traverses array and object to enumerate all referenced objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800789 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-sebastian-object-enumerator4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800775] Review Request: php-sebastian-recursion-context4 - Recursively process PHP variables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800775 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-sebastian-recursion-context4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800784] Review Request: php-sebastian-object-reflector2 - Allows reflection of object attributes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800784 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-sebastian-object-reflector2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1800759] Review Request: php-phpunit-php-file-iterator3 - FilterIterator implementation that filters files based on a list of suffixes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800759 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-308051ab66 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-308051ab66 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
