[Bug 1839476] Review Request: python-msal-extensions - Microsoft Authentication extensions for MSAL Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839476 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d2173c8004 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-d2173c8004 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d2173c8004 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 1839475] Review Request: python-msal - Microsoft Authentication Library (MSAL) for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839475 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d2173c8004 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-d2173c8004 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d2173c8004 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 1839476] Review Request: python-msal-extensions - Microsoft Authentication extensions for MSAL Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839476 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-26f856d019 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2020-26f856d019 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-26f856d019 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 1839475] Review Request: python-msal - Microsoft Authentication Library (MSAL) for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839475 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-26f856d019 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2020-26f856d019 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-26f856d019 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 1833511] Review Request: golang-github-dustinkirkland-petname - An RFC1178 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1833511 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-dustinkirkland-petname -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1839429] Review Request: rust-bzip2-sys - Bindings to libbzip2 for bzip2 compression and decompression exposed as Reader/Writer streams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839429 --- Comment #1 from Breno --- Hi Michel, Do you think we could have the text file of the licenses? E.g. %license LICENSE-APACHE LICENSE-MIT [1, 2] What about having the latest version? I see here the bzip2-sys-0.1.9 was released only ~ 5 days ago :( 1 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-ripgrep/blob/master/f/rust-ripgrep.spec 2 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-dirs/blob/master/f/rust-dirs.spec Apart from that, I think it's all good. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1773720] Review Request: golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi - HAProxy Data Plane API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773720 --- Comment #22 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1773719] Review Request: golang-github-haproxytech-client-native - Go client for HAProxy configuration and runtime API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773719 --- Comment #15 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-haproxytech-client-native -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1842662] Review Request: ismrmrd - ISMRM Raw Data Format (ISMRMRD)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842662 Antonio T. sagitter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1276941 (fedora-neuro) 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 1842662] New: Review Request: ismrmrd - ISMRM Raw Data Format (ISMRMRD)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842662 Bug ID: 1842662 Summary: Review Request: ismrmrd - ISMRM Raw Data Format (ISMRMRD) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: trp...@rocketmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sagitter/ForTesting/epel-8-x86_64/01419854-ismrmrd/ismrmrd.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sagitter/ForTesting/epel-8-x86_64/01419854-ismrmrd/ismrmrd-1.4.2.1-1.el8.src.rpm Description: Fedora Account System Username: sagitter This package is for Fedora and EPEL8 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1833511] Review Request: golang-github-dustinkirkland-petname - An RFC1178 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1833511 Brandon Perkins changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1833511] Review Request: golang-github-dustinkirkland-petname - An RFC1178 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1833511 Ryan O'Hara 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 1833511] Review Request: golang-github-dustinkirkland-petname - An RFC1178 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1833511
--- Comment #4 from Ryan O'Hara ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/rohara/1833511-golang-github-dustinkirkland-
petname/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
All good.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
* snip *
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
All good.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
N/A
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
All good.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in golang-
github-dustinkirkland-petname-devel
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
All above seem fine. Might want to check if the dataplaneapi packages that
depend on this need stricter version requirements
[ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
N/A
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
Looks fine.
[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)
[Bug 1833511] Review Request: golang-github-dustinkirkland-petname - An RFC1178 implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1833511 Ryan O'Hara changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|roh...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1840870] Review Request: golang-github-HarryMichal-go-version - Version normalizer and comparison library for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840870 Ondřej Míchal changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Version normalizer and comparison library for Go spec: https://harrymichal.fedorapeople.org/golang-github-HarryMichal-go-version.spec SRPM: https://harrymichal.fedorapeople.org/golang-github-harrymichal-version-1.0.0-1.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 1839476] Review Request: python-msal-extensions - Microsoft Authentication extensions for MSAL Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839476 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-26f856d019 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-26f856d019 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1839476] Review Request: python-msal-extensions - Microsoft Authentication extensions for MSAL Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839476 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d2173c8004 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d2173c8004 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1839475] Review Request: python-msal - Microsoft Authentication Library (MSAL) for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839475 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-26f856d019 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-26f856d019 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1839475] Review Request: python-msal - Microsoft Authentication Library (MSAL) for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839475 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d2173c8004 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d2173c8004 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1443767] Review Request: nodejs-empower-core - Power Assert feature enhancer for assert function/object
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443767 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(jsmith.fedora@gma | |il.com) | --- Comment #5 from Jared Smith --- The dependencies have become such a nightmare that I'm no longer interested. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1842042] Review Request: repo2module - A tool to take a yum repository and turn it into a Fedora module stream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842042 --- Comment #2 from Miroslav Suchý --- repo2module.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US yaml -> yam, yams, yawl This should be YAML repo2module.x86_64: E: no-binary Hmm. no idea what this means :( I am going to ignore this. repo2module.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/repo2module/cli.py 644 /usr/bin/python3 remove the executable bit please. repo2module.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary repo2module This would be nice to have, but I will not block a review on this. Otherwise, this looks good. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1840914] Review Request: mpsolve - Multiprecision polynomial solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840914 Erich Eickmeyer 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 1840914] Review Request: mpsolve - Multiprecision polynomial solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840914 Erich Eickmeyer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST --- Comment #8 from Erich Eickmeyer --- Hi Jerry, I feel as though you justified everything, even though I don't quite understand it. This package is 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 1840914] Review Request: mpsolve - Multiprecision polynomial solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840914 Erich Eickmeyer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1840914] Review Request: mpsolve - Multiprecision polynomial solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840914 Erich Eickmeyer changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|er...@ericheickmeyer.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 1840870] Review Request: golang-github-HarryMichal-go-version - Version normalizer and comparison library for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840870 Ondřej Míchal changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|unspecified |medium -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1842579] New: Review Request: golang-github-acobaugh-osrelease - Golang package to read and parse /etc/os-release
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842579 Bug ID: 1842579 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-acobaugh-osrelease - Golang package to read and parse /etc/os-release Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: harrymic...@seznam.cz QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://harrymichal.fedorapeople.org/golang-github-acobaugh-osrelease.spec SRPM URL: https://harrymichal.fedorapeople.org/golang-github-acobaugh-osrelease-0.0.0-1.20200601gita93a0a5.fc33.src.rpm Description: Golang package to read and parse /etc/os-release Fedora Account System Username: harrymichal -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1840914] Review Request: mpsolve - Multiprecision polynomial solver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840914 --- Comment #7 from Jerry James --- Erich, you should have reviewer privileges now. If you feel comfortable acting in the role of reviewer for this bug, then please proceed. If you don't, please let me know and I will get somebody else to do the full review. Thank you for what you have done so far. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1836568] Review Request: python-graphql-relay - Relay library for graphql-core-next
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836568 --- Comment #2 from Javier Peña --- I'll take a more in-depth look one graphql-core is built. From the spec file, I'd only modify the "Requires: python3dist(graphql-core) >= 3~a0" line. While that matches the requirement in the upstream project, we're only going to build 3.1.x in Fedora, so maybe we could change the requirement to >= 3.0.0 and make it easier to read. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1836568] Review Request: python-graphql-relay - Relay library for graphql-core-next
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836568 Javier Peña changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jp...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jp...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Javier Peña --- Taking this one too, we need this and graphql-core as pre-requisites for graphene. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1836567] Review Request: python-graphql-core - GraphQL implementation for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836567 --- Comment #2 from Javier Peña --- Hi, The spec looks good, I just have a couple suggestions for fixes: - The documentation build from your source rpm shows a lot of errors due to the graphql package not being available. I had some success by moving it to the %install section and setting PYTHONPATH, just like you did in the %check section for pytest. - python-sphinx_rtd_theme works as a build requirement, but I think it might be cleaner to use python3-sphinx_rtd_theme (just a personal thing, feel free to ignore if you have other preferences). - There is version 3.1.1 now, could you update your spec so that fedora-review does not complain? Other than that, the fedora-review output looks fine, so once those small issues are fixed we should be good to go. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1839476] Review Request: python-msal-extensions - Microsoft Authentication extensions for MSAL Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839476 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-msal-extensions -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1836567] Review Request: python-graphql-core - GraphQL implementation for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836567 Javier Peña changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jp...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jp...@redhat.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Javier Peña --- I'll take care of the review, turns out I was planning to build it too. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1547500] Review Request: python-jupyterlab - The JupyterLab notebook server extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1547500 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added CC||reif...@gmail.com --- Comment #14 from Miro Hrončok --- *** Bug 1842060 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 1674625] Review Request: python-operator-courier - Library and CLI tool to build, verify and push operator metadata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674625 Matt Prahl changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |VERIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1773720] Review Request: golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi - HAProxy Data Plane API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773720 --- Comment #21 from Brandon Perkins --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bdperkin/haproxytech/master/SPECS/golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bdperkin/haproxytech/fedora-32-x86_64/01419481-golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi/golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi-2.0.3-1.fc32.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1839476] Review Request: python-msal-extensions - Microsoft Authentication extensions for MSAL Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839476 --- Comment #2 from Mohamed El Morabity --- Thanks again for this review Fabian :) (In reply to Fabian Affolter from comment #1) > Installation issue can be ignored as the package is in Rawhide. Package > APPROVED. I've just launched a scratch build on Rawhide, fortunately it builds fine :) https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45279930 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1842475] Review Request: python-publicsuffix2 - Get a public suffix for a domain name using the Public Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842475 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- $ rpmlint . python-publicsuffix2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US registrable -> registrar, registrant, strategist python-publicsuffix2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US publicsuffix -> public suffix, public-suffix, publicist python-publicsuffix2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wildcards -> wild cards, wild-cards, wildcatters python-publicsuffix2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eTLD -> ETD python3-publicsuffix2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US registrable -> registrar, registrant, strategist python3-publicsuffix2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US publicsuffix -> public suffix, public-suffix, publicist python3-publicsuffix2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wildcards -> wild cards, wild-cards, wildcatters python3-publicsuffix2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eTLD -> ETD python3-publicsuffix2.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/publicsuffix2/public_suffix_list.dat ../../../../share/publicsuffix/public_suffix_list.dat 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Spelling errors should obviously be ignored. The dangling-relative-symlink warning is expected. License (MIT) is different from upstream (MIT and MPLv2.0), as the MPLv2.0-licensed public_suffix_list.dat file is unbundled. koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45279055 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1842475] New: Review Request: python-publicsuffix2 - Get a public suffix for a domain name using the Public Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842475 Bug ID: 1842475 Summary: Review Request: python-publicsuffix2 - Get a public suffix for a domain name using the Public Suffix List Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: domi...@greysector.net QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/python-publicsuffix2/python-publicsuffix2.spec SRPM URL: https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/python-publicsuffix2/python-publicsuffix2-2.20191221-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: This module allows you to get the public suffix, as well as the registrable domain, of a domain name using the Public Suffix List from http://publicsuffix.org This module builds the public suffix list as a Trie structure, making it more efficient than other string-based modules available for the same purpose. It can be used effectively in large-scale distributed environments, such as PySpark. The code is a fork of the publicsuffix package and includes the same base API. In addition, it contains a few variants useful for certain use cases, such as the option to ignore wildcards or return only the extended TLD (eTLD). You just need to import publicsuffix2 instead. Fedora Account System Username: rathann -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1842042] Review Request: repo2module - A tool to take a yum repository and turn it into a Fedora module stream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842042 Miroslav Suchý changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(msu...@redhat.com |fedora-review? |) | --- Comment #1 from Miroslav Suchý --- Taking. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1839476] Review Request: python-msal-extensions - Microsoft Authentication extensions for MSAL Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839476
Fabian Affolter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Remove the possible available binary egg in %prep before the import.
= 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". 22 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/fab/Documents/repos/reviews/1839476-python-msal-
extensions/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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[!]: 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:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary
[Bug 1827939] Review Request: ardour6 - Digital Audio Workstation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827939 Guido Aulisi changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Guido Aulisi --- Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: === - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/.build- id/04/b99d598fbc7a93ff5bc9de98b83b946fd82846 See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files = MUST items = C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License GPL (v2)", "*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License, Version 2", "Public domain GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License (v2)", "GNU General Public License (v2 or later)", "GNU General Public License", "Expat License", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License (v2 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1)", "NTP License", "GNU General Public License (v2.0) GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License, Version 2", "zlib/libpng license", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License GNU General Public License GNU Lesser General Public License", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "Boost Software License 1.0", "BSD 4-clause "Original" or "Old" License", "GPL (v2 or later) GNU Lesser General Public License", "NTP License Expat License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "GPL (v2)". 1940 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/guido/tmp/1827939-ardour6/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[Bug 1832562] Review Request: tpcclib - Tools for processing data from Turku PET Centre (TPC)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832562
Michael Schwendt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugs.mich...@gmx.net
--- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt ---
This review request is a bit of a mystery. The spec file contains a few grave
mistakes that have been introduced since the older version found at:
https://pagure.io/tpcclib/blob/master/f/tpcclib.spec
> %package devel
> Summary: Libraries files for tpcclib development
> # Upstream only provides static libraries
> Provides: %{name}-static%{?_isa} = %{version}-static
Carefully follow
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_static_libraries
since right now you would be unable to "BuildRequires: tpcclib-static" as per
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_statically_linking_executables
Also notice these two:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_requiring_base_package
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#subpackage-licensing
> %files devel
> %{_includedir}/*.a
> %{_includedir}/*.h
Static libraries belong into %{_libdir}
Currently, there are 34 static libraries and 34 header files. Can you tell a
bit more about the usage scenario of this package? What external software does
(or will) use these libs? Each of the header files includes a missing
"tpcclibConfig.h" which indicates that these likely are internal headers and
libs and not a public API.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1842328] Review Request: python-zstandard - Zstandard bindings for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842328 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45252489 $ rpmlint . 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1795526] Review Request: ghc-cborg - Concise Binary Object Representation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795526
--- Comment #14 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
These two should be fixed:
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/doc/ghc/html/libraries, /usr/share/doc/ghc/html,
/usr/share/doc/ghc
ghc-cborg-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/ghc-cborg-devel/ChangeLog.md
and I'm not sure about this one:
[?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ghc-
cborg-prof
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/share/doc/ghc/html/libraries, /usr/share/doc/ghc/html,
/usr/share/doc/ghc
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[?]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 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 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
[Bug 1840134] Review Request: kio-fuse - KIO FUSE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840134 Yaroslav Sidlovsky changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-06-01 06:54:55 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
