[Bug 1868290] Review Request: f33-backgrounds - Fedora 33 default desktop background
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868290 --- Comment #2 from Luya Tshimbalanga --- Wearing upstream hat, Source0 should be fixed as I uploaded the tarball in question (https://github.com/fedoradesign/backgrounds/releases/tag/v33.0.0). The images are placeholder until Design Team readies the actual beta default wallpapers. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1867464] Review Request: R-cpp11 - A C++11 Interface for R's C Interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867464 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-b587935b93 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-b587935b93 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-b587935b93 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 1867464] Review Request: R-cpp11 - A C++11 Interface for R's C Interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867464 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-9b78868619 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-2020-9b78868619 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-9b78868619 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 1865833] Review Request: libscn - Library for replacing scanf and std::istream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1865833 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-08-13 01:38:24 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-51f242de7f has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1692560] Review Request: postgresqltuner - Script to analyze PostgreSQL database configuration and tuning
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1692560 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? |needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com | |) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1692560] Review Request: postgresqltuner - Script to analyze PostgreSQL database configuration and tuning
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1692560 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin --- (In reply to Mikel Olasagasti Uranga from comment #6) > Hi Robert, > > I've a sponsor now and I tried to `request_repo` for this package, but it > complains that 'review was approved over 60 days ago'. Can you re-approve > this package? Sorry I'm deep into Go packaging, I didn't check my Bugzilla mail. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1862965] Review Request: rust-tpm2-policy - Specify and send TPM2 policies to satisfy object authorization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862965 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(pbrobinson@gmail. | |com)| --- Comment #2 from Peter Robinson --- Ah, yes, looks like it broke when we bumped tss-eapi to 4.0.6-alpha.1 for other reasons, will have a fix tomorrow. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1862619] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-here - Expands [@here] into its location
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862619 --- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones --- TBH I don't know exactly why this has changed, but recently we moved to a new system for generating the OCaml dependencies and it wouldn't surprise me at all if that was the cause. At the moment I would wait to see if anyone reports a concrete problem before trying to debug it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868290] Review Request: f33-backgrounds - Fedora 33 default desktop background
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868290 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||decatho...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini --- Not offering a formal review (yet), but I see two issues: - the Source0 tarball does not exist outside of the SRPM you uploaded, the Source0 URL is 404 - the upstream repo knows nothing about 33.x releases yet - are the images themselves placeholders? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1862794] Review Request: rust-prost-derive - Protocol Buffers implementation for the Rust Language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862794
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jared Smith ---
Package is APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: 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", "Apache License 2.0". 10 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jsmith/Documents/Fedora/Reviews/1862794-rust-prost-
derive/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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]: 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).
[?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
prost-derive-devel , rust-prost-derive+default-devel
[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.
[x]: 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
[Bug 1862804] Review Request: rust-sd-notify - Lightweight crate for systemd service state notifications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862804
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jared Smith ---
Package is APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 9 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jsmith/Documents/Fedora/Reviews/1862804-rust-sd-
notify/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-sd-
notify-devel , rust-sd-notify+default-devel
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]:
[Bug 1862965] Review Request: rust-tpm2-policy - Specify and send TPM2 policies to satisfy object authorization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862965
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
||needinfo?(pbrobinson@gmail.
||com)
--- Comment #1 from Jared Smith ---
This package errors out when I try to build it:
+ /usr/bin/env CARGO_HOME=.cargo RUSTC_BOOTSTRAP=1 /usr/bin/cargo build -j8 -Z
avoid-dev-deps --release
error: no matching package named `tss-esapi` found
location searched: registry `https://github.com/rust-lang/crates.io-index`
prerelease package needs to be specified explicitly
tss-esapi = { version = "4.0.6-alpha.1" }
required by package `tpm2-policy v0.1.0
(/builddir/build/BUILD/tpm2-policy-0.1.0)`
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1862777] Review Request: rust-secrecy - Wrapper types and traits for secret management which help ensure they aren't accidentally copied, logged, or otherwise exposed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862777
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jared Smith ---
Package is APPROVED. Please shorten the "Summary" field before submitting.
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". 10 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jsmith/Documents/Fedora/Reviews/1862777-rust-
secrecy/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
secrecy-devel , rust-secrecy+default-devel , rust-secrecy+alloc-devel
, rust-secrecy+bytes-devel , rust-secrecy+serde-devel
[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.
[-]:
[Bug 1862622] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-enumerate - Generate a list containing all values of a finite type
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862622
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jared Smith ---
Package is APPROVED.
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]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 13 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jsmith/Documents/Fedora/Reviews/1862622-ocaml-ppx-
enumerate/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 8 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
Ocaml:
[?]: This should never happen
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]:
[Bug 1862619] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-here - Expands [@here] into its location
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862619 --- Comment #3 from Jerry James --- Thank you for the review, Ankur! The next time you have a package that needs a review, let me know. (In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #2) > [?]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). > ^ Both the devel and non-devel packages provide these. Is that OK? (What will > dnf choose if one simply tries to install ocaml(Ppx_here)?) > ocaml(Ppx_here) > ocaml(Ppx_here_expander) > ocaml(Ppx_here_lib) If I rebuild other OCaml packages, already in Fedora, in Rawhide then I see the same thing happen. The -devel package contains the same Provides as the main package. I don't know what has changed to cause this. Richard, if you are reading this, is this expected? > One from rpmlint: > > ocaml-ppx-here-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length > /usr/lib64/ocaml/ppx_here/ppx_here.mli > ^ > I think this is OK, but please do re-check Upstream provides a zero-byte file, because this package doesn't provide a library, but rather a syntax extension, so the library interface file doesn't need any contents. Whether we need to package it at all is the question. I don't know the answer, but will try to find out. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1853217] Review Request: ServiceReport - a tool to validate and repair system configuration for specific purposes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853217 Vasant Hegde changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-08-12 16:56:33 --- Comment #11 from Vasant Hegde --- FYI. I have created repo and built package buding #1860811. I think we can close this defect. -Vasant -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1853217] Review Request: ServiceReport - a tool to validate and repair system configuration for specific purposes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853217 Bug 1853217 depends on bug 1860811, which changed state. Bug 1860811 Summary: Review Request: ServiceReport - a tool to validate and repair system configuration for specific purposes https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860811 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1860811] Review Request: ServiceReport - a tool to validate and repair system configuration for specific purposes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860811 Vasant Hegde changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-08-12 16:52:55 --- Comment #10 from Vasant Hegde --- Yes. We are fine with Fedra33 and rawhide. We can close this defect. Thanks you all. -Vasant -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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 #35 from Artur Iwicki --- $ cd "$LIBVMA_REPO_DIR" $ fedpkg request-branch "$BRANCH_NAME" or, alternatively: $ fedpkg request-branch --repo "rpms/libvma" "$BRANCH_NAME" -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #28 from Miro Hrončok --- 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 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027
--- Comment #27 from Fabien Boucher ---
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #25)
> Other than that:
>
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
>
>
> Issues:
>
> 1) Some of the packages put files into /usr/lib/systemd/system but they don't
>co-own the directories nor do they require systemd. You need to do one of
> the things.
Done. Added systemd as Require for required subpackages.
> 2) zuul.noarch: W: no-documentation
>Consider adding %doc README.rst to the main package.
>
Done
>
> = 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", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright*
> Apache License 2.0 GPL (v3.0)", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
> "Expat License", "GPL (v3 or later)". 1651 files have unknown license.
> [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd,
> /usr/lib/systemd/system
> [-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> It bundles ansibles, but there is marked.
> [x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
> [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
> [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
> [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
> [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
> names).
> [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> [x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
> [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
> [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
> Provides are present.
> [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
> [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
> [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
> [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
> [?]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
> [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
> [x]: Dist tag is present.
> [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
> [x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
> [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
> [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
> work.
> [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
> [x]: No %config files under /usr.
> [x]: Package is not relocatable.
> [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
> provided in the spec URL.
> [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
> %{name}.spec.
> [x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
> [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
> (~1MB) or number of files.
> Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
> [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
>
> Python:
> [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
> process.
> [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
> provide egg info.
> [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
> [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
> [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
> packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
> versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python 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
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 --- Comment #26 from Fabien Boucher --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #24) > > I wasn't able to provide multiple Provides: bundled(ansible) = . > > Wasn't able? rpmlint will bother you, but is should work: > > > Provides: ansible = 1 > Provides: ansible = 2 > Provides: ansible = 3 > > $ rpm -qp --provides ../RPMS/noarch/reproducer-doubleprovide-0-0.noarch.rpm > ansible = 1 > ansible = 2 > ansible = 3 > reproducer-doubleprovide = 0-0 Yes it was just a rpmlint error. So in the new spec version: Provides: bundled(ansible) = 2.9 Provides: bundled(ansible) = 2.8 Provides: bundled(ansible) = 2.7 and I skip the error in the zuu.rpmlintrc https://fbo.fedorapeople.org/zuul/zuul.rpmlintrc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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 igor.ivanov...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(igor.ivanov.va@gm | |ail.com)| --- Comment #34 from igor.ivanov...@gmail.com --- Hi Honggang, Could you advise how to create remote f31, f32 branches for libvma. I can not do it useing `git push origin f32` 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 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027
--- Comment #25 from Miro Hrončok ---
Other than that:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
1) Some of the packages put files into /usr/lib/systemd/system but they don't
co-own the directories nor do they require systemd. You need to do one of
the things.
2) zuul.noarch: W: no-documentation
Consider adding %doc README.rst to the main package.
= 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", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright*
Apache License 2.0 GPL (v3.0)", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
"Expat License", "GPL (v3 or later)". 1651 files have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd,
/usr/lib/systemd/system
[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
It bundles ansibles, but there is marked.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[?]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 --- Comment #24 from Miro Hrončok --- > I wasn't able to provide multiple Provides: bundled(ansible) = . Wasn't able? rpmlint will bother you, but is should work: Provides: ansible = 1 Provides: ansible = 2 Provides: ansible = 3 $ rpm -qp --provides ../RPMS/noarch/reproducer-doubleprovide-0-0.noarch.rpm ansible = 1 ansible = 2 ansible = 3 reproducer-doubleprovide = 0-0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 --- Comment #23 from Fabien Boucher --- Spec: https://fbo.fedorapeople.org/zuul/zuul.spec SRPM: https://fbo.fedorapeople.org/zuul/zuul-3.19.1-1.fc34.src.rpm https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=49153119 I wasn't able to provide multiple Provides: bundled(ansible) = . I guess this related to your explanation here https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint/issues/427 So I've updated the spec, the functional tests passed https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/zuul/pull-request/2#comment-53457 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1862218] Review Request: rust-wasm-bindgen-macro - Definition of the `#[wasm_bindgen]` attribute, an internal dependency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862218 --- Comment #1 from Peter Robinson --- koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=49152198 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1862218] Review Request: rust-wasm-bindgen-macro - Definition of the `#[wasm_bindgen]` attribute, an internal dependency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862218 Bug 1862218 depends on bug 1862217, which changed state. Bug 1862217 Summary: Review Request: rust-wasm-bindgen-macro-support - Part of the implementation of the `#[wasm_bindgen]` attribute that is not in the shared backend crate https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862217 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1862217] Review Request: rust-wasm-bindgen-macro-support - Part of the implementation of the `#[wasm_bindgen]` attribute that is not in the shared backend crate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862217 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-08-12 14:12:54 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1862217] Review Request: rust-wasm-bindgen-macro-support - Part of the implementation of the `#[wasm_bindgen]` attribute that is not in the shared backend crate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862217 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-wasm-bindgen-macro-support -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1867898] Review Request: php-phpunit-php-code-coverage9 - PHP code coverage information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867898 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1863701 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1863701 [Bug 1863701] php-phpunit-php-code-coverage8: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f33 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1862619] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-here - Expands [@here] into its location
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862619
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
Package Review
==
Looks good. One or two things to check before importing. APPROVED
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[?]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
^ Both the devel and non-devel packages provide these. Is that OK? (What will
dnf choose if one simply tries to install ocaml(Ppx_here)?)
ocaml(Ppx_here)
ocaml(Ppx_here_expander)
ocaml(Ppx_here_lib)
One from rpmlint:
ocaml-ppx-here-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/lib64/ocaml/ppx_here/ppx_here.mli
^
I think this is OK, but please do re-check
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 17 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-
reviews/1862619-ocaml-ppx-here/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 8 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
Ocaml:
[x]: This should never happen
= 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).
^ Both the devel and non-devel packages provide
[Bug 1862623] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-hash - Generate hash functions from type expressions and definitions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862623 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@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 1862620] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-assert - Assert-like extension nodes that raise useful errors on failure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862620 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@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 1828983] Rename Request: khmer-os-fonts - Khmer font family set created by Danh Hong of the Cambodian Open Institute
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828983 --- Comment #2 from Parag Nemade --- Thank you so much for doing this 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 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027
--- Comment #22 from Miro Hrončok ---
Yes please!
The Fedora's ansible package is licensed as GPLv3+ and licensecheck suggest the
same, so the correct tag is (NB the lower case "and" and the plus at the end):
# The entire source code is ASL 2.0 except files under
%%{python3_sitelib}/zuul/ansible which is GPLv3+
License: ASL 2.0 and GPLv3+
Adding the bundled provides makes sense for the security response team. You
might get some ansible CVEs open for zuul and would need to check the impact on
zuul.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1867464] Review Request: R-cpp11 - A C++11 Interface for R's C Interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867464 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-b587935b93 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-b587935b93 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1867464] Review Request: R-cpp11 - A C++11 Interface for R's C Interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867464 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-9b78868619 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-9b78868619 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 --- Comment #21 from Fabien Boucher --- Some Ansible modules have been modified to fit some security requirements of Zuul. So yes this is intentional and part of the upstream Zuul project. Should I set ?: # The entire source code is ASL 2.0 except files under /usr/lib/pythonX.X/site-packages/zuul/ansible which is GPLv3 License: ASL 2.0 And GPLv3 The provided Ansible files are modified by the Zuul maintainers. Thus I'm wondering if it makes sense to include this information according to the explanation here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries?rd=Packaging:Bundled_Libraries#Requirement_if_you_bundle "This allows us to search for packages that may be affected by bugs or security issues in older versions of the library" Provides: bundled(ansible) = 2.7 Provides: bundled(ansible) = 2.8 Provides: bundled(ansible) = 2.9 Let me know. Thanks again for the help ! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868290] Review Request: f33-backgrounds - Fedora 33 default desktop background
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868290 Luya Tshimbalanga changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1852019 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1852019 [Bug 1852019] Default animated background for Fedora Workstation -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868290] New: Review Request: f33-backgrounds - Fedora 33 default desktop background
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868290 Bug ID: 1868290 Summary: Review Request: f33-backgrounds - Fedora 33 default desktop background Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: luya_...@thefinalzone.net QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/fxx-backgrounds/fedora-rawhide-s390x/01606647-f33-backgrounds/f33-backgrounds.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/luya/fxx-backgrounds/fedora-rawhide-s390x/01606647-f33-backgrounds/f33-backgrounds-33.0.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: This package contains desktop backgrounds for the Fedora 33 default theme. Pulls in themes for GNOME, KDE, Mate and Xfce desktops. Fedora Account System Username: luya -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1268745] Review Request: rubygem-parser - A Ruby parser written in pure Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268745 Bug 1268745 depends on bug 1268744, which changed state. Bug 1268744 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-ast - A library for working with Abstract Syntax Trees https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268744 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1268744] Review Request: rubygem-ast - A library for working with Abstract Syntax Trees
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268744 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Flags|fedora-review+ | |needinfo?(ilya.gradina@gmai | |l.com) | Last Closed||2020-08-12 08:32:25 --- Comment #10 from Mattia Verga --- Closing as DEADREVIEW Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking 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 1862619] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-here - Expands [@here] into its location
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862619 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||sanjay.an...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sanjay.an...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- I'll review this and a few others that I can manage, Jerry. No swaps needed---I have nothing pending at the 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
