[Bug 1821546] Review Request: ghc-aeson-better-errors - Better error messages when decoding JSON values
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821546 Hirotaka Wakabayashi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||hiw...@yahoo.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|hiw...@yahoo.com 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 1821459] Review Request: golang-github-aryann-difflib - Library for diffing two sequences of text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821459 Hirotaka Wakabayashi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Hirotaka Wakabayashi --- Hello Fabian, Package approved. Please check the following notes before import. * If difflib_server need to start at boot this package must have a systemd unit file. Please see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Systemd/#_unit_files * A man page for difflib_server is recommended. Please see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages Best, Hirotaka Wakabayashi Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed = MUST items = Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: 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/vagrant/FedoraReview/1821459-golang-github-aryann- difflib/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com(compat-golang-github-commonmark-puny- devel, golang-github-gobwas-glob-devel, golang-github-googleapis-gax- devel, golang-github-coreos-iptables-devel, golang-github-jeffail- gabs-devel, golang-github-goftp-server-devel, golang-github- ianlancetaylor-cgosymbolizer-devel, golang-github-davecgh-spew-devel, compat-golang-github-redis-devel, compat-golang-github-xorm-builder- devel, golang-github-xorm-devel, golang-github-flynn-json5-devel, golang-github-transip-gotransip-devel, golang-github-cbroglie- mapstructure-devel, golang-github-vmware-photon-controller-sdk-devel, golang-github-cyphar-filepath-securejoin-devel, golang-github- hashicorp-hil-devel, golang-github-nkovacs-streamquote-devel, golang- github-opentracing-devel, golang-github-tcnksm-input-devel, golang- github-tg-gosortmap-devel, golang-github-chi-devel, golang-github- antihax-optional-devel, golang-github-onsi-gomega-devel, golang- github-sqshq-sampler-devel, golang-github-martini-contrib-render- devel, golang-github-nicksnyder-i18n-devel, golang-github-jzelinskie- whirlpool-devel, golang-github-lucas-clemente-quic-certificates-devel, golang-github-sendgrid-devel, golang-github-niklasfasching-org-devel, golang-github-azure-service-bus-devel, golang-github-benlaurie- objecthash-devel, golang-github-gofrs-uuid-devel, golang-github- howeyc-gopass-devel, golang-github-jaguilar-vt100-devel, golang- github-otiai10-copy-devel, golang-github-asaskevich-govalidator-devel, golang-github-hashicorp-lru-devel, golang-github-golangplus-bytes- devel, golang-github-apache-arrow-devel, golang-github-mschoch-smat- devel, golang-github-mitchellh-mapstructure-devel, golang-github- thorduri-libusb-devel, golang-github-glacjay-goini-devel, golang- github-data-dog-godog-devel, golang-github-circonus-labs- circonusllhist-devel, golang-github-influxdata-line-protocol-devel, golang-github-sabhiram-gitignore-devel, golang-github-sony-gobreaker- devel, golang-github-thinkerou-favicon-devel, golang-github- tv42-httpunix-devel, golang-github-google-cmp-devel, golang-github- zmap-zcrypto-devel, golang-github-daviddengcn-algs-devel, golang- github-jacobsa-ogletest-devel, golang-github-acme-lego-devel, golang- github-logr-devel, golang-github-andy-kimball-arenaskl-devel, golang- github-haproxytech-config-parser-devel, golang-github-tarm-serial- devel, golang-github-soheilhy-cmux-devel, golang-github-calmh-xdr- devel, golang-github-tidwall-pretty-devel, golang-github-bruth-assert- devel, golang-github-jessevdk-flags-devel, golang-github-influxdata- influxdb1-client-devel, golang-github-fluent-logger-devel, golang- github-lunixbochs-vtclean-devel, golang-github-mattn-ieproxy-devel, golang-github-pelletier-toml-devel, golang-github-yunify-qingstor-sdk- devel, golang-github-google-subcommands-devel, golang-github- prometheus-common-devel, golang-github-cespare-xxhash-devel, golang- github-azure-ansiterm-devel, golang-github-abbot-http-auth-devel, golang-github-cockroachdb-ttycolor-devel, golang-github-facebookgo- atomicfile-devel,
[Bug 1836309] Review Request: ghc-time-manager - Scalable timer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836309 --- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen --- (In reply to Tristan Cacqueray from comment #3) > What is the cabal-rpm diff? I re-run the `cabal-rpm spec time-manager` > command with cabal-rpm-2.0.4 and there was no diff. You can try running `cblrpm diff`. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1826439] Review Request: libvma - LD_PRELOAD-able library with standard BSD sockets API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826439
Michal Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(mschmidt@redhat.c |
|om) |
--- Comment #21 from Michal Schmidt ---
Hi Igor,
I have not added you to the packagers group yet. I have some questions and
comments about the package.
libvma.spec:
> BuildRequires: libibverbs-devel
> BuildRequires: rdma-core-devel
These days, libibverbs-devel is provided by rdma-core-devel.
> BuildRequires: libnl3-devel
Your config/m4/nl.m4 uses PKG_CHECK_MODULES, so you should BR
pkgconfig(libnl-route-3.0) instead.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PkgConfigBuildRequires/
> %build
> export revision=%{use_rel}
This seems unnecessary. I did not find anything referencing the "revision"
environment variable in your build system.
> %install
> %{make_build} DESTDIR=${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} install
You should use %{make_install} instead.
> %files
> %{_libdir}/%{name}.so*
So the package contains something like this:
libvma.so -> libvma.so.9.1.0
libvma.so.9 -> libvma.so.9.1.0
libvma.so.9.1.0
Since libvma.so is to be used only for LD_PRELOAD and no program should be
linked against it (and have DT_NEEDED for it),:
1. is there a point in versioning the library?
2. does it have to be installed in the linker's default path? Would it make
more sense to have it as %{_libdir}/libvma/libvma.so ?
Do you actually use configure_options for anything? I don't think it's common
for Fedora packages to have macros like that "just in case".
use_rel - This is fascinating. The macro not only determines the value of the
Release tag, it also influences the build where its value gets used for version
compatibility checks and encoded in version strings. To me the mechanism seems
needlessly complicated and I fail to see the benefit of it. Also, are you aware
that sometimes automatic scripts (e.g. release engineering mass rebuilds) bump
the Release fields in Fedora spec files? Normally in RPM, Version is the
upstream version and Release serves packaging needs.
30-libvma-limits.conf:
> # Default limits that are needed for proper work of libvma
> # Read more about this topic in the VMA's User Manual
Can you point me to where in the manual is this discussed?
> * - memlockunlimited
> * soft memlockunlimited
> * hard memlockunlimited
Does having the package installed give every user on the system the permission
to mlock unlimited amounts of RAM? Is that really necessary? Could it be at
least limited to a user group?
vma.service:
> [Unit]
> Description=VMA Daemon. Version: 9.1.0-0
Please consider dropping the version from the Description. No other service has
that.
> After=network.target syslog.target
syslog.target became irrelevant and was removed in 2013. Please remove that
dependency. I am aware some packages still have that, but it's just cargo-cult
now.
> Requires=network.target
This does not make sense for your daemon. See man systemd.special(7) about the
intended use of network.target.
> [Service]
> Type=forking
> Restart=on-failure
> ExecStart=/usr/sbin/vma start
> ExecStop=/usr/sbin/vma stop
/usr/sbin/vma is a SysV initscript. That's terrible.
Why not start the deamon binary directly?:
ExecStart=/usr/sbin/vmad
(And maybe set KillSignal if needed.)
> ExecReload=/usr/sbin/vma restart
You must not fake the reload operation with restart. If the service cannot do a
reload, just do not define ExecReload.
> RestartForceExitStatus=1 SIGTERM
It's unusual to need to use this setting. There may be a good reason for it,
but please double check.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1833476] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-fields-conv - Generate accessor & iteration functions for OCaml records
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1833476 --- Comment #4 from dan.cer...@cgc-instruments.com --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #2) > Do you have builds of ocaml-ppxlib and ocaml-compiler-libs-janestreet in > your copr? If so, could you remove them? I just tried building this > package with "mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --enablerepo=local" and it > succeeded. Indeed, I had ocaml-compiler-libs-janestreet in the copr, removing it fixed the build issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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: modulemd-tools - Collection of tools for parsing and generating modulemd YAML files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842042 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Kadlčík --- Soo, we polished the repo2module package and made it ready for Fedora, so we decided to mess it up again. As you can see, I renamed the package, changed its summary and description and it now temporarily contains also Source1. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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: modulemd-tools - Collection of tools for parsing and generating modulemd YAML files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842042 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Kadlčík --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/modulemd-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01434115-modulemd-tools/modulemd-tools.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/modulemd-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01434115-modulemd-tools/modulemd-tools-0.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Tools provided by this package: repo2module - Takes a YUM repository on its input and creates modules.yaml containing YAML module definitions generated for each package. dir2module - Generates a module YAML definition based on essential module information provided via command-line parameters. The packages provided by the module are found in a specified directory or a text file containing their list. Fedora Account System Username: frostyx -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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: modulemd-tools - Collection of tools for parsing and generating modulemd YAML files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1842042 Jakub Kadlčík changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: repo2module |Review Request: |- A tool to take a yum |modulemd-tools - Collection |repository and turn it into |of tools for parsing and |a Fedora module stream |generating modulemd YAML ||files -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1844120] Review Request: Jamulus - A tool for live rehearsale acroos the internet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844120 --- Comment #16 from ycollet --- Thanks for the install advice. I fixed the spec file. I also updated to jamulus-3.5.6. The developpers have fixed most of the licences problem. The link to the src rpm file: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ycollet/linuxmao/fedora-32-x86_64/01434101-jamulus/jamulus-3.5.6-6.fc32.src.rpm The link to ths spec file: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ycollet/fedora-spec/master/jamulus/jamulus.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1844308] Review Request: python-uvicorn - The lightning-fast ASGI server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844308 --- Comment #2 from Carl George 鸞 --- Thanks for catching that. I'll see if I can help get those packages updated. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1845667] New: Review Request: qxmledit - Powerful XML editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1845667 Bug ID: 1845667 Summary: Review Request: qxmledit - Powerful XML editor Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ti.eug...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qxmledit/qxmledit.spec SRPM URL: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qxmledit/qxmledit-0.9.15-1.src.rpm Description: QXmlEdit is a simple XML editor based on Qt libraries. Its main features are unusual data visualization modes, nice XML manipulation and presentation and it is multi platform. It can split very big XML files into fragments, and compare XML and XSD files. Fedora Account System Username: tieugene -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1839241] Review Request: rust-xcb - Rust bindings and wrappers for XCB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839241
Stefano Figura changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Stefano Figura ---
Reviewer Notes:
- ACCEPT
- Looks go to me!
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "NTP License (legal
disclaimer)", "*No copyright* Expat License". 16 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/var/home/returntrip/reviews/rust-xcb/1839241-rust-
xcb/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
xcb-devel , rust-xcb+default-devel , rust-xcb+composite-devel , rust-
xcb+damage-devel , rust-xcb+debug_all-devel , rust-xcb+dpms-devel ,
rust-xcb+dri2-devel , rust-xcb+dri3-devel , rust-xcb+ge-devel , rust-
xcb+glx-devel , rust-xcb+present-devel , rust-xcb+randr-devel , rust-
xcb+record-devel , rust-xcb+render-devel , rust-xcb+res-devel , rust-
xcb+screensaver-devel , rust-xcb+shape-devel , rust-xcb+shm-devel ,
rust-xcb+sync-devel , rust-xcb+thread-devel , rust-xcb+x11-devel ,
rust-xcb+xevie-devel , rust-xcb+xf86dri-devel , rust-xcb+xf86vidmode-
devel , rust-xcb+xfixes-devel , rust-xcb+xinerama-devel , rust-
xcb+xinput-devel ,
[Bug 1826439] Review Request: libvma - LD_PRELOAD-able library with standard BSD sockets API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826439 --- Comment #20 from igor.ivanov...@gmail.com --- Added https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9509 Thanks, Igor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1839258] Review Request: rust-wayland-commons - Common types and structures used by wayland-client and wayland-server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839258
Stefano Figura changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Stefano Figura ---
Reviewer Notes:
- ACCEPT
- PR was raised upstream to add per crate license. Since version 0.26.6 is
released this issue can be cleared when upgrading the package during import
[!]: 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.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /var/home/returntrip/reviews/rust-wayland-
commons/1839258-rust-wayland-commons/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
wayland-commons-devel , rust-wayland-commons+default-devel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should
[Bug 1836568] Review Request: python-graphql-relay - Relay library for graphql-core-next
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836568 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1826108 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826108 [Bug 1826108] python3-pytest-asyncio-0.12.0 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1839263] Review Request: rust-xcursor - Library for loading XCursor themes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839263
Stefano Figura changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Stefano Figura ---
Reviewer Notes:
- ACCEPT
- Was unable to complete the fedora-review due to
`rust-xcursor-0.2.0-1.fc32.src.rpm` being fc32 release. I did create a rawhide
version (using the provided spec file) and fedora-review worked as expected.
Perhaps in the future best to provide rawhide release? Thanks.
- PR raised to include licenses and doc. This addresses below issues:
[!]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /var/home/returntrip/reviews/rust-
xcursor/review-rust-xcursor/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
xcursor-devel , rust-xcursor+default-devel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if
[Bug 1826439] Review Request: libvma - LD_PRELOAD-able library with standard BSD sockets API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826439 --- Comment #19 from Honggang LI --- (In reply to igor.ivanov.va from comment #18) > Michal, Honggang > what is next step for getting one into fc33? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers 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 1826439] Review Request: libvma - LD_PRELOAD-able library with standard BSD sockets API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826439 --- Comment #18 from igor.ivanov...@gmail.com --- Michal, Honggang what is next step for getting one into fc33? Thanks, Igor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1845362] Review Request: R-BiocFileCache - Manage Files Across Sessions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1845362 Iñaki Ucar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Iñaki Ucar --- Please, remember to mark those %doc. Package 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 1845360] Review Request: R-AnnotationDbi - Manipulation of SQLite-based annotations in Bioconductor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1845360 Iñaki Ucar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Iñaki Ucar --- Please, remember to mark those %doc. Package 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 810049] Review Request: netbeans-ide - Netbeans Integrated Development Environment (IDE)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810049 Tomas Hoger changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(extras-qa@fedorap | |roject.org) | -- 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 1845362] Review Request: R-BiocFileCache - Manage Files Across Sessions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1845362
--- Comment #1 from Iñaki Ucar ---
- doc and NEWS should be marked as %doc.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package have the default element marked as %%doc :doc, DESCRIPTION, NEWS
- Package requires R-core.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 25 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/iucar/fedora-
review/1845362-R-BiocFileCache/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.
[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]: 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]: 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
R:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires.
[x]: The package has the standard %install section.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of
[Bug 1845360] Review Request: R-AnnotationDbi - Manipulation of SQLite-based annotations in Bioconductor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1845360
--- Comment #1 from Iñaki Ucar ---
- doc and NEWS should be marked as %doc. I'd say that NOTES-Herve and TODO too,
or simply remove them.
- Note that this package already exists and was retired, so the rest of the
unretirement process is required (mail to devel, releng ticket...).
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 229 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/iucar/fedora-
review/1845360-R-AnnotationDbi/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.
[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]: 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 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
R:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires.
[x]: The package has the standard %install section.
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use
[Bug 1825456] Review Request: libvirt-test-API - Python based regression tests for libvirt API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825456 --- Comment #11 from Richard W.M. Jones --- (In reply to lnie from comment #10) > Hi Richard, > > > What is the license of the PDF file? > > GFDL. That's a "good license" (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses_2) This means if you want to you could package this file in a separate -doc package, but that's optional. > > Weirdly it works now, but didn't when I tried it on Friday. > > I also have seen the URL error when I ran fedora-review on this package,and > I thought it is a wrong alert. > I have tried several times yesterday and today,it works all the time,so > there is no need for me to change it,right? No need to change this as the URL now seems correct. May have been a temporary server problem. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1845362] Review Request: R-BiocFileCache - Manage Files Across Sessions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1845362 Iñaki Ucar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||i.uca...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i.uca...@gmail.com 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 1845360] Review Request: R-AnnotationDbi - Manipulation of SQLite-based annotations in Bioconductor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1845360 Iñaki Ucar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||i.uca...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i.uca...@gmail.com 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 1845423] New: Review Request: python-hass-data-detective - Tools for studying Home Assistant data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1845423 Bug ID: 1845423 Summary: Review Request: python-hass-data-detective - Tools for studying Home Assistant data Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-hass-data-detective.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-hass-data-detective-2.1-1.fc31.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/robmarkcole/HASS-data-detective Description: This package provides a set of convenience functions and classes to analyze the data in your Home Assistant database. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45569160 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python3-hass-data-detective-2.1-1.fc31.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python-hass-data-detective-2.1-1.fc31.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1844225] Review Request: python-sphinx-pyreverse - A simple sphinx extension to generate UML diagrams with pyreverse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844225 --- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग) --- Forgot this one 5) As per https://github.com/alendit/sphinx-pyreverse/blob/master/setup.py#L34 , change the package license from "GPLv3" to "GPLv3+". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1844225] Review Request: python-sphinx-pyreverse - A simple sphinx extension to generate UML diagrams with pyreverse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844225
--- Comment #5 from Parag AN(पराग) ---
sorry for late comment. I was supposed to post this review last weekend.
Issues to be fixed:
1) The descriptions in SPEC is in "reStructuredText" format, make it normal
text format.
The other noticeable thing is that the description text start with package
name.
We don't write description like that. Drop the package name and keep rest of
the text.
2) Like many other pypi packages, this package also did not add tests and
license file in tarball.
In this case we can think to use github released tarball but upstream has
not tagged/released recent tarballs on github.
Better add license file as separate source as given below in SPEC file.
Source1:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/alendit/sphinx-pyreverse/master/LICENSE
then at the end of %prep section add
cp -p %{SOURCE1} .
then in %files section add line for this license file as
%license LICENSE
3) Running test in %check also have problem because pypi tarball contains only
1 upstream file from tests directory. This is just note here no action needed
for this issue.
4) As per https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs
guidelines, you need to add your email address in changelog.
Everytime you make a change in SPEC file, bump the release tag, add a new
changelog entry describing what got changed from last release and submit new
URLS for further package 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 1825456] Review Request: libvirt-test-API - Python based regression tests for libvirt API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825456 --- Comment #10 from lnie --- Hi Richard, > What is the license of the PDF file? GFDL. > Weirdly it works now, but didn't when I tried it on Friday. I also have seen the URL error when I ran fedora-review on this package,and I thought it is a wrong alert. I have tried several times yesterday and today,it works all the time,so there is no need for me to change it,right? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1844120] Review Request: Jamulus - A tool for live rehearsale acroos the internet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844120 --- Comment #15 from Vasiliy Glazov --- Last thing you need to use "install -p" key to preserve timestamps. You must change it but no need to rebuild at that moment. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1844120] Review Request: Jamulus - A tool for live rehearsale acroos the internet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1844120
Vasiliy Glazov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Vasiliy Glazov ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License",
"GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD 3-clause "New"
or "Revised" License GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)",
"GPL (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect
FSF address)". 435 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/vascom/1844120-jamulus/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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]:
[Bug 1839241] Review Request: rust-xcb - Rust bindings and wrappers for XCB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839241 --- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- OK, tested and this builds on a clean Mock (so it's not picking up undeclared dependencies from other previously installed packages). There's a PR against upstream to make it build on Python 3.9, included in the SRPM. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1839241] Review Request: rust-xcb - Rust bindings and wrappers for XCB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839241 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(michel@michel-slm | |.name) | --- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/rust/rust-xcb.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/rust/rust-xcb-0.9.0-2.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
