[Bug 1827948] Review Request: python-spyking-circus - Fast and scalable spike sorting of large-scale extracellular recordings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827948
--- Comment #3 from greg.helli...@gmail.com ---
tl;dr My test machine is running Fedora 31, and I tested in F32 in a container.
I couldn't get the package to install. Two other oddities that need an
explanation or quick correction.
If you've got a minute, I could use a quick review on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827887 as well.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly. Fails to install with error "nothing provides
python3.8dist(mpi4py) needed by python3-spyking-circus-0.9.7-1.fc32.noarch"
- There are odd provides being picked up by rpmlint. python- and python38-.
The python38- seems like it's targeting EPEL, while the bare python-
doesn't seem right. But those must be auto-generated by the macros you
use, as there are no explicit "provides" listed
- README.rst is listed as %license but appears to be more of a README. This
gives two files listed as license files
= 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", "CeCILL License 2.1", "CeCILL License
(v2.1)", "*No copyright* CeCILL License (v2.1)". 198 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/ghelling/src/packaging/1827948-python-spyking-
circus/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.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
Note: Macros in: python3-spyking-circus (description)
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: 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.
[-]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: 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.
[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
[Bug 1823091] Review Request: python-freeipa - Lightweight FreeIPA client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823091 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-a729ac8728 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, 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 1820847] Review Request: golang-github-adrianmo-nmea - NMEA parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820847 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-dcd80c48f4 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-dcd80c48f4 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-dcd80c48f4 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1820854] Review Request: golang-github-antchfx-jsonquery - Jsonq package for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820854 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-8d59588171 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-8d59588171 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-8d59588171 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1827948] Review Request: python-spyking-circus - Fast and scalable spike sorting of large-scale extracellular recordings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827948 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||greg.helli...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|greg.helli...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- I'll hop on this review -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1822464] Review Request: python-siphash - SipHash in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822464 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-a9bf7fa256 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problem still persists, 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 1823091] Review Request: python-freeipa - Lightweight FreeIPA client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823091 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-06730065a6 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problem still persists, 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 1823091] Review Request: python-freeipa - Lightweight FreeIPA client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823091 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-81f9f75f04 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, 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 1823091] Review Request: python-freeipa - Lightweight FreeIPA client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823091 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-04-26 02:48:07 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-217b6928cc has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, 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 1822971] Review Request: notcurses - character graphics and TUI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822971 --- Comment #29 from Nick Black --- I've rebuilt RPMs and verified that the installed _notcurses.abi3.so has an SONAME of _notcurses.abi3.so.1. In the meantime, I've also added OpenImageIO support to notcurses upstream. Since OpenImageIO is in Fedora Core (unlike FFmpeg), I've updated the spec file to invoke CMake such that notcurses is built against OpenImageIO. As a result of further changes, this means that notcurses-view is now installed, and that notcurses-demo is built with (Free) multimedia support (i.e. the non-Free multimedia remains uninstalled). This is a total of less than 10 megabytes, but I went ahead and split it out into a noarch notcurses-data package. So we're now at eight binary packages and one SRPM. The base package depends on notcurses-data because the binaries are installed as part of that package. If i moved them out into notcurses-utils, there's no longer a dep on those data files from the shared library package. Just a thought. It's trivial to make that change, so feel free to ask for it. I should have a new release and SRPM up late tonight. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 810049] Review Request: netbeans-ide - Netbeans Integrated Development Environment (IDE)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810049 Naveen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||naveen...@gmail.com --- Comment #109 from Naveen --- Post free classifieds in India: https://kuknus.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1827427] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-argos - Create GNOME Shell extensions in seconds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427
Jeremy Newton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Jeremy Newton ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3)". 4 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jeremy/packagegits/fedora-reviews/gnome-shell-extension-
argos/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.
[-]: 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 30720 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
As I mentioned above, you should do this, but not a blocker
[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.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
It would be good to add a comment that provides the url to the pull request for
patch0.
[-]: 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.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
[Bug 1827427] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-argos - Create GNOME Shell extensions in seconds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427 Jeremy Newton 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 1827427] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-argos - Create GNOME Shell extensions in seconds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427 --- Comment #4 from Jeremy Newton --- Looks pretty good. I believe the spelling of "dropdown" should be "drop-down" as rpmlint suggests, but not a blocker. I would query upstream to include a license file though, not a blocker though. As well, not a blocker either, but it would be good to include the pull request for patch0 url in a comment, possibly with a brief one line explanation/summary of the patch. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1827427] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-argos - Create GNOME Shell extensions in seconds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827427 --- Comment #3 from Jeremy Newton --- Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1826034] Review Request: cubeb - A cross platform audio library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034 --- Comment #8 from Jeremy Newton --- New files uploaded: Spec URL: https://mystro256.fedorapeople.org/cubeb.spec SRPM URL: https://mystro256.fedorapeople.org/cubeb-0.2-1.20200409.git9caa5b1.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 1826034] Review Request: cubeb - A cross platform audio library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826034 --- Comment #7 from Jeremy Newton --- (In reply to Michel Alexandre Salim from comment #4) > Going through the automated fedora-review result right now, but re: the > licenses -- looks like sanitizers-cmake is only used as part of the build > process, so I'm not sure we need to list its license in the RPM metadata > (though it being bundled as a source makes the issue a bit muddled; normally > build dependencies are pulled in as a BuildRequires). You are (and cubeb is) > using it the way sanitizers-cmake upstream intended though -- per > https://github.com/arsenm/sanitizers-cmake -- so it's probably fine this way > for now. Indeed. It's MIT, so there's no need to provide a license with it, but since it's a build script (not distributed with binaries) and the license it's still available in the sources, it should be okay as-is. (In reply to Michel Alexandre Salim from comment #5) > ... > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > Ignore Expat - the license checker somehow misidentifies the > MIT-licensed files in sanitizers-cmake. > > *but* > - The Android files should probably be removed, or you need to add ASL > 2.0 to the list of licenses > - Some files are actually BSD-licensed (add BSD to the list of licenses) > - The files with unknown license presumably fall under the project's > ISC license > > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Unknown or generated", "ISC License", "Expat License", "Apache > License 2.0", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 73 files have > unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/michel/src/fedora/reviews/1826034-cubeb/licensecheck.txt > Sure, I can delete the android files in %prep. I usually do this, but I must have missed it. I'll add BSD too. > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > > Might be worth asking upstream to also declare some files are ASL 2.0 > and BSD licensed and include those license files in their repo Understood, but this is a common practice I find. Usually, the project license, or "assumed" license, is included and any other licenses are declared in the file. I find most open-source projects will especially skip distributing weak copyleft licenses if it makes up a minor percentage of the code. > > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. > > Not a review blocker, but from looking at .gitmodules googletest is > needed to run tests -- might be nice to include it and enable tests once > this package is in Fedora For sure, I haven't had time to test this, but it's definitely a "nice to have" after I start building 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 1827957] Review Request: python-sciunit - Framework for test-driven validation of scientific models
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827957 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1276941 (fedora-neuro) Alias||python-sciunit Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276941 [Bug 1276941] Fedora NeuroImaging and NeuroScience tracking 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 1827957] New: Review Request: python-sciunit - Framework for test-driven validation of scientific models
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827957 Bug ID: 1827957 Summary: Review Request: python-sciunit - Framework for test-driven validation of scientific models Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sanjay.an...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-sciunit/python-sciunit.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-sciunit/python-sciunit-0.2.2-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: A framework for validating scientific models by creating experimental-data-driven unit tests. Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1827948] Review Request: python-spyking-circus - Fast and scalable spike sorting of large-scale extracellular recordings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827948 david08...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||david08...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from david08...@gmail.com --- I tried to build the package, but that failed to print without () Is this using python2? Also, why are the tests disabled? MPI is available ... COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/davidsch/testing/package/python-spyking-circus/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1775443] Review Request: wlr-randr - An xrandr clone for wlroots compositors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1775443 Morian Sonnet changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(thofmann@fedorapr ||oject.org) --- Comment #6 from Morian Sonnet --- Sorry, I did not look into this for a while. Here is the new .spec file, it also includes the newest commits upstream. https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/momosomium/wlr-randr/fedora-31-x86_64/01347873-wlr-randr/wlr-randr.spec I don't know how I messed up `rpmdev-bumpspec` back then, now it worked flawlessly. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1827948] Review Request: python-spyking-circus - Fast and scalable spike sorting of large-scale extracellular recordings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827948 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1276941 (fedora-neuro) Alias||python-spyking-circus Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276941 [Bug 1276941] Fedora NeuroImaging and NeuroScience tracking 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 1827948] New: Review Request: python-spyking-circus - Fast and scalable spike sorting of large-scale extracellular recordings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827948 Bug ID: 1827948 Summary: Review Request: python-spyking-circus - Fast and scalable spike sorting of large-scale extracellular recordings Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sanjay.an...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-spyking-circus/python-spyking-circus.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-spyking-circus/python-spyking-circus-0.9.7-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: SpyKING CIRCUS is a python code to allow fast spike sorting on multi channel recordings. A publication on the algorithm can be found at https://elifesciences.org/articles/34518. It has been tested on datasets coming from in vitro retina with 252 electrodes MEA, from in vivo hippocampus with tetrodes, in vivo and in vitro cortex data with 30 and up to 4225 channels, with good results. Synthetic tests on these data show that cells firing at more than 0.5Hz can be detected, and their spikes recovered with error rates at around 1%, even resolving overlapping spikes and synchronous firing. It seems to be compatible with optogenetic stimulation, based on experimental data obtained in the retina. Fedora Account System Username: ankursinha -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1388294] Review Request: pyflame - Ptracing Profiler For Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1388294 --- Comment #24 from Georg Sauthoff --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #23) > Stalled? Definitely. The Pyflame upstream project was recently abandoned. Unfortunately, I can't find an official end-of-life announcement (that would e.g. hint the reasons behind this move). But the Pyflame repository now redirects to: https://github.com/uber-archive/pyflame which reads: > This project is deprecated and not maintained. See also this small sub-thread which mentions some alternatives: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21695050 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1629371] Review Request: mock-install - A small utility to request package installation within a mock buildroot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1629371 Bug 1629371 depends on bug 1641191, which changed state. Bug 1641191 Summary: Please make pm_request available (and working) in koji https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1641191 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |UPSTREAM -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1827939] New: Review Request: ardour6 - Digital Audio Workstation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827939 Bug ID: 1827939 Summary: Review Request: ardour6 - Digital Audio Workstation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: nphil...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://nphilipp.fedorapeople.org/review/ardour6/ardour6.spec SRPM URL: https://nphilipp.fedorapeople.org/review/ardour6/ardour6-6.0-0.1.rc1.104.fc33.src.rpm Description: Ardour is a multi-channel digital audio workstation, allowing users to record, edit, mix and master audio and MIDI projects. It is targeted at audio engineers, musicians, soundtrack editors and composers. Fedora Account System Username: nphilipp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1827925] New: Review Request: rust-vmw_backdoor - Pure-Rust library for VMware host-guest protocol ("VMXh backdoor")
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827925
Bug ID: 1827925
Summary: Review Request: rust-vmw_backdoor - Pure-Rust library
for VMware host-guest protocol ("VMXh backdoor")
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
Reporter: rfair...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL:
https://rfairley.fedorapeople.org/package-review/rust-vmw_backdoor.spec
SRPM URL:
https://rfairley.fedorapeople.org/package-review/rust-vmw_backdoor-0.1.2-1.fc33.src.rpm
Description: Pure-Rust library for VMware host-guest protocol ("VMXh
backdoor").
Fedora Account System Username: rfairley
Koji scratch buiild:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43775085
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1826270] Review Request: perl-B-COW - Additional B helpers to check Copy On Write status
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826270 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-b40431c7f0 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-b40431c7f0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-b40431c7f0 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1820805] Review Request: golang-github-bettercap-gatt - Go package for building Bluetooth Low Energy peripherals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820805 Jakub Čajka changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Jakub Čajka --- (In reply to Fabian Affolter from comment #2) > (In reply to Jakub Čajka from comment #1) > > - Package contains bundled copies of libraries. xpc and gioctl under > > MIT/Expat license. It would be good to mention that in comment around > > License tag and add bundled provides > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling. I think > > that those libraries are rather minimal source libraries and it is fine to > > bundle them for time being(when tracked), possibly work with upstream to > > de-bundle them. > > It looks like that the bundled parts are included to fix build issues. I > opened an issue about the unbundling. > > Thanks for adding bringing it up in upstream. I don't want to be overly pedantic, but could you add breakdown in the comment near license section that those libs are under MIT/expat license for the distribution build. Otherwise looks good. Approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795461] Review Request: practrand - Software package for the Randon number generation & testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795461 --- Comment #8 from Jiri Hladky --- Hello Ankur, I have talked to the upstream developer and a new version should be ready in two weeks. Please bear with us. Thanks! Jirka -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1827901] Review Request: zswap-cli - Command-line tool to control zswap options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827901
Artem changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||ego.corda...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ego.corda...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Artem ---
%{?systemd_requires} is not necessary anymore, see this for example
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807753#c14
As for 'No known owner of /etc/default' there is already upstream issue:
https://github.com/xvitaly/zswap-cli/issues/28
Please, use full link without macroses in URL:
https://github.com/xvitaly/zswap-cli
It's much easier to click on link in your code editor.
All this minor issues could be fixed during import and next version. Tested for
few days this package and all fine. 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]: 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", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat
License". 26 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /mnt/data-linux/tmp/review/1827901-zswap-
cli/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /etc/default
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/default
[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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 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: 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]:
[Bug 1823117] Review Request: opensurge - 2D retro platformer inspired by Sonic games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823117 --- Comment #13 from Artur Iwicki --- I have a hard time finding, for lack of better term, the source of truth for HanYang fonts. The designer's website says (it's in Korean, so I rely on auto-translation) that the font is proprietary. On the other hand, it's featured on Google Fonts and lots of different websites, tagged SIL OFL. The designer's website states the font has 90-something weights and variants, while the freely downloadable packs only contain the typical normal/bold/italic variants, so _maybe_ it's a case of them releasing the "basic" variants for free - but I can't find any place that would confirm that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1827901] New: Review Request: zswap-cli - Command-line tool to control zswap options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827901 Bug ID: 1827901 Summary: Review Request: zswap-cli - Command-line tool to control zswap options Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: vit...@easycoding.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://github.com/xvitaly/zswap-cli/raw/master/packaging/fedora/zswap-cli.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/xvitaly/ecrepo/fedora-32-x86_64/01344839-zswap-cli/zswap-cli-0.3.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Command-line tool to control zswap options Fedora Account System Username: xvitaly -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1814349] Rename Request: google-caladea-fonts - Caladea, a serif font family metric-compatible with Cambria font family
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1814349 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Nicolas Mailhot --- You can probably remove the following line, looks like a cut & paste leftover %global fontsex fonts/otf/*SC*otf And given the description, maybe some Cambo aliasing would be in order (seems Caladea is the same design, tweaked to fit into Cambria metrics But, this is fine tuning. The spec works fine and we have a real active upstream for the font family at last APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823117] Review Request: opensurge - 2D retro platformer inspired by Sonic games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823117 --- Comment #12 from Antonio T. (sagitter) --- Any news here? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1820854] Review Request: golang-github-antchfx-jsonquery - Jsonq package for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820854 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-8d59588171 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-8d59588171 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1820847] Review Request: golang-github-adrianmo-nmea - NMEA parser library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820847 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-dcd80c48f4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-dcd80c48f4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1827880] Review Request: fswatch - A cross-platform file change monitor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827880
--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter ---
Package Review
==
- The license is GPLv3+ (either version 3, or (at your option) any later
version.)
- Descriptions (%description static) should end with a period and %description
is too long (see rpmlint ouput)
- COPYING is in %doc and %license, should only be in %license
- "Source0:" could be replaced with
%{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- NEWS could be part of the package, AUTHORS.libfswatch, NEWS.libfswatch
andvREADME.libfswatch.md of the -devel package
- The package should own %{_includedir}/lib%{name}/*
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: 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)", "FSF All
Permissive License", "GNU Free Documentation License", "GNU Free
Documentation License (v1.3 or later)". 31 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/fab/Documents/repos/reviews/1827880-fswatch/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/include/libfswatch
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/libfswatch
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: 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 61440 bytes in 4 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
present.
Note: Package has .a files:
[Bug 1827880] Review Request: fswatch - A cross-platform file change monitor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827880 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@fabian-affolter.ch Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1820843] Review Request: golang-github-bettercap-recording - Allows reading and writing bettercap's session recordings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820843 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1820842] Review Request: golang-github-kr-binarydist - Go implementation of the bspatch algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820842 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter --- Thank you 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 1820804] Review Request: golang-github-mdlayher-dhcp6 - DHCPv6 server, as described in RFC 3315
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820804 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1814349] Rename Request: google-caladea-fonts - Caladea, a serif font family metric-compatible with Cambria font family
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1814349 --- Comment #8 from Parag Nemade --- Updated fontconfig files to use new DTD id Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pnemade/fedora-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01347597-ht-caladea-fonts/ht-caladea-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pnemade/fedora-review/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01347597-ht-caladea-fonts/ht-caladea-fonts-1.001-2.20200401git336a529.fc33.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 1827887] Review Request: mingw-biblesync - A Cross-platform library for sharing Bible navigation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827887 --- Comment #2 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- This is just a mingw port of the existing biblesync package that I also maintain. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1827887] Review Request: mingw-biblesync - A Cross-platform library for sharing Bible navigation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827887 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- Scratch build for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43763042 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1827887] New: Review Request: mingw-biblesync - A Cross-platform library for sharing Bible navigation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827887 Bug ID: 1827887 Summary: Review Request: mingw-biblesync - A Cross-platform library for sharing Bible navigation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: greg.helli...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~greghellings/mingw-biblesync.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3043/43763043/mingw-biblesync-2.0.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: BibleSync is a multicast protocol to support Bible software shared co- navigation. It uses LAN multicast in either a personal/small team mutual navigation motif or in a classroom environment where there are Speakers plus the Audience. It provides a complete yet minimal public interface to support mode setting, setup for packet reception, transmit on local navigation, and handling of incoming packets. This library is not specific to any particular Bible software framework, completely agnostic as to structure of layers above BibleSync. Fedora Account System Username: greghellings -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
