[Bug 1877742] Review Request: python-aresponses - Asyncio testing server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877742 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7bde36b11b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7bde36b11b -- 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 1876958] Review Request: python-aioiotprov - Library/utility to help provision various IoT devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876958 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-f59556a1b4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f59556a1b4 -- 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 1878249] Review Request: rust-polyval - GHASH-like universal hash over GF(2^128) useful for constructing a Message Authentication Code (MAC)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878249 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-polyval -- 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 1878574] New: Review Request: emacs-async - Asynchronous processing in Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878574 Bug ID: 1878574 Summary: Review Request: emacs-async - Asynchronous processing in Emacs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tul...@ascii.art.br QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://pagure.io/emacs-async/raw/master/f/emacs-async.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/tuliom/emacs/srpm-builds/01659385/emacs-async-1.9.4-0.fc31.src.rpm Description: Async is an Emacs module that provides asynchronous processing. It's a dependency of other modules, e.g. magit/with-editor. Fedora Account System Username: tuliom I have a successful build available on copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/tuliom/emacs/build/1659385/ -- 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 1862842] Review Request: icon - Icon programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862842 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/icon -- 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 1876911] Review Request: python-sortedcollections - Python Sorted Collections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876911 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sortedcollections -- 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 1878279] Review request (rename): antimicrox - Graphical program used to map keyboard buttons and mouse controls to a gamepad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878279 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/antimicrox -- 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 1878514] Review Request: catimg - Print images in a terminal with 256 colors support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878514
Artur Frenszek-Iwicki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@svgames.pl
--- Comment #3 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki ---
You did a koji scratch build for F32, whereas the fedora-review mock build is
for F34. Some time ago CMake SRPM macros were modified so that out-of-source
builds are now the default.
>%build
>%cmake .
>
>%install
>%make_install
Try changing this part to:
%build
%cmake .
%cmake_build
%install
%cmake_install
Also,
>URL: https://github.com/posva/catimg
>Source0:
>https://codeload.github.com/posva/%{name}/tar.gz/%{version}#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
You can use "%{URL}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz" here for a
cleaner Source URL.
--
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 1862842] Review Request: icon - Icon programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862842 --- Comment #5 from Eric Smith --- Thanks for reviewing! I don't think the icon binary itself needs the icall.h header. I believe it is provided for the purpose of building add-on modules, so conceptually I think it would belong in a -devel subpackage, but it sounds like we're in agreement that it's not worth having a subpackage for just the one header file. I updated to 9.5.20i per your request, so I think this is ready to go. Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/icon/icon.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/icon/icon-9.5.20i-1.fc31.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1878529] Review Request: iotop-c - Simple top-like I/O monitor (implemented in C)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878529 Boian Bonev changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #1 from Boian Bonev --- rpmlint warning is now fixed. somehow I couldn't set that this blocks 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 1878529] New: Review Request: iotop-c - Simple top-like I/O monitor (implemented in C)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878529 Bug ID: 1878529 Summary: Review Request: iotop-c - Simple top-like I/O monitor (implemented in C) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: bbo...@ipacct.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bbonev/iotop/master/fedora/iotop-c.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/bbonev/iotop/raw/master/fedora/iotop-c-1.11-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: iotop-c is re-implementation of Python iotop with lots of improvements and added functionality Fedora Account System Username: bbonev1 Because of the improvements, iotop-c's command line options differ from the Python version. Because of that I have added conflicts and didn't implement alternatives. In my opinion alternatives are OK for this package, but I have followed Fedora policy here. As an upstream maintainer of iotop C re-implementation, it is not a problem for me to maintain a Fedora package too (currently I do Debian and Arch Linux). I have tried koji and mock builds, they go without warnings. rpmlint RPMS/* SRPMS/* iotop-c.src:5: W: hardcoded-packager-tag Boian Bonev 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. As long as this is my first RPM package, I may have missed something, so I would appreciate advice. -- 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 1877702] Review Request: revelation - Password manager for the GNOME desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877702 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d2c3726a7f has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-d2c3726a7f` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d2c3726a7f 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 1837107] Review Request: 7kaa - Seven Kingdoms: Ancient Adversaries (claiming ownership of package)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837107 --- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-ba4ff0908c has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-ba4ff0908c` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-ba4ff0908c 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 1878350] Review Request: gammastep - Adjusts the color temperature of your screen according to time of day
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878350
--- Comment #2 from Aleksei Bavshin ---
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1)
Thanks for the review!
Updated files:
Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01659102-gammastep/gammastep.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01659102-gammastep/gammastep-2.0.2-0.1.fc34.src.rpm
---
> If the gammastep-indicator subpackage is a regular Python package, it should
> (if possible) provide egg-info like so:
> > %{python3_sitelib}/gammastep-indicator-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info/
Nope, it's all autotools. To my knowledge, it's not possible to generate
egg-info with automake python module.
> - systemd_user_post is invoked in %post and systemd_user_preun in %preun
> for Systemd user units service files.
> Note: Systemd user unit service file(s) in gammastep, gammastep-indicator
> See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
> guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units
I have no idea what that means. I'm pretty sure the scriptlets section adheres
to the guidelines.
Is it fedora-review bug?
> Review: The src/gamma-control.xml file has an extra in-code legal
> disclaimer
> that resembles the MIT license. Please, have a look at it.
Fixed, thanks!
> [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> Review: since the gammastep-indicator subpackage does not explicitly
> Requires
> the main gammastep package, one should add the license file to it as
> well.
Added Requires to gammastep-indicator.
> [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/user,
> /usr/lib/systemd
> Review: please, make gammastep own these dirs or add the necessary
> Requires.
That would make the package depend on `systemd` or own systemd unit
directories.
Both are wrong things to do for a simple package.
> [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
> Note: Could not download Source0:
>
> https://gitlab.com/chinstrap/gammastep/-/archive/v2.0.2/gammastep-v2.0.2.tar.
> gz
> See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
> guidelines/SourceURL/
> Review: Some route redirection issue in fedora-review?
> The URL is perfectly accessible.
fedora-review seems to have trouble with any gitlab URLs :(
> Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
> gammastep-indicator
> Review: Is the gammastep-indicator subpackage an independent subpackage?
No, gammastep-indicator should require the main package. Thanks for catching
that.
> gammastep-indicator.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libappindicator-gtk3
Please, ignore this rpmlint error.
There's a GObject introspection import from python file which is not supported
by rpm automatic dependency generators. Thus, explicit lib dependency.
--
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 1878514] Review Request: catimg - Print images in a terminal with 256 colors support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878514
--- Comment #2 from Kees de Jong ---
Strange... My mock build works fine:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=51376359
However, when I do `fedora-review -b 1878514` to review the package, it fails
with:
Executing(%install): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.BJOdJw
+ umask 022
+ cd /builddir/build/BUILD
+ '[' /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/catimg-2.7.0-1.fc34.x86_64 '!=' / ']'
+ rm -rf /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/catimg-2.7.0-1.fc34.x86_64
++ dirname /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/catimg-2.7.0-1.fc34.x86_64
+ mkdir -p /builddir/build/BUILDROOT
+ mkdir /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/catimg-2.7.0-1.fc34.x86_64
+ cd catimg-2.7.0
+ /usr/bin/make install
DESTDIR=/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/catimg-2.7.0-1.fc34.x86_64
'INSTALL=/usr/bin/install -p'
make: *** No rule to make target 'install'. Stop.
RPM build errors:
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.BJOdJw (%install)
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.BJOdJw (%install)
Child return code was: 1
EXCEPTION: [Error()]
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py", line
93, in trace
result = func(*args, **kw)
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/mockbuild/util.py", line 776, in
do_with_status
raise exception.Error("Command failed: \n # %s\n%s" % (command, output),
child.returncode)
mockbuild.exception.Error: Command failed:
# /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M cad744f303f7446896cee40ee35c03e3 -D
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root -a -u mockbuild
--capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.husl3a1r:/etc/resolv.conf
--bind=/dev/btrfs-control --bind=/dev/loop-control --bind=/dev/loop0 --
bind=/dev/loop1 --bind=/dev/loop2 --bind=/dev/loop3 --bind=/dev/loop4
--bind=/dev/loop5 --bind=/dev/loop6 --bind=/dev/loop7 --bind=/dev/loop8
--bind=/dev/loop9 --bind=/dev/loop10 --bind=/dev/loop11 --console=pipe
--setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/ builddir
--setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin
--setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;\007"
--setenv=PS1= \s-\v\$ --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 bash --login -c
/usr/bin/rpmbuild -bb --target x86_64 --nodeps /builddir/build/
SPECS/catimg.spec
Mock Version: 2.5
I tried adding `%make_install -C %{_target_platform}`, since the orphaned
package had this as well. But then my mock build fails. Any suggestions?
--
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 1878514] Review Request: catimg - Print images in a terminal with 256 colors support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878514 Kees de Jong changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/keesdejong/public_git/rpmbuild.git/plain/SPECS/catimg.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/keesdejong/public_git/rpmbuild.git/tree/SRPMS/catimg-2.7.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: catimg is a little program written in C with no dependencies that prints images in terminal. It supports JPEG, PNG, ICO and GIF formats. Fedora Account System Username: keesdejong --- Comment #1 from Kees de Jong --- Fixed the URL for the SRPM. Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/keesdejong/public_git/rpmbuild.git/plain/SPECS/catimg.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/keesdejong/public_git/rpmbuild.git/plain/SRPMS/catimg-2.7.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: catimg is a little program written in C with no dependencies that prints images in terminal. It supports JPEG, PNG, ICO and GIF formats. Fedora Account System Username: keesdejong -- 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 1878514] New: Review Request: catimg - Print images in a terminal with 256 colors support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878514 Bug ID: 1878514 Summary: Review Request: catimg - Print images in a terminal with 256 colors support Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: kees.dejong+...@neobits.nl QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora -- 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 1837107] Review Request: 7kaa - Seven Kingdoms: Ancient Adversaries (claiming ownership of package)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837107 --- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-021483c324 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 upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-021483c324` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-021483c324 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 1871825] Review Request: python-ratelimiter - Python module providing rate limiting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871825 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-c9941d5bd1 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 1867329] Review Request: R-RcppDate - 'date' C++ Header Library for Date and Time Functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867329 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-f2c2d6ad2a 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 1871825] Review Request: python-ratelimiter - Python module providing rate limiting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871825 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-09-13 14:18:57 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-5b3e08eca9 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1821189] Package Review: Snakemake - Workflow management system to create reproducible and scalable data analyses
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821189 Bug 1821189 depends on bug 1871825, which changed state. Bug 1871825 Summary: Review Request: python-ratelimiter - Python module providing rate limiting https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871825 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- 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 1877873] Review Request: python-soco - Python library to control Sonos speakers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877873 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-8a70917009 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-2020-8a70917009 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-8a70917009 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 1837107] Review Request: 7kaa - Seven Kingdoms: Ancient Adversaries (claiming ownership of package)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837107 --- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-8a63eb6948 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 upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-8a63eb6948` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-8a63eb6948 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 1877811] Review Request: python-pyarlo - Python library to interact with Netgear Arlo cameras
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877811
Andy Mender changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Andy Mender ---
Extra COPR build for python-pyarlo:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/andymenderunix/python-iot/build/1658979/
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
- Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
Note: python3-pytest4 is deprecated, you must not depend on it.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/deprecating-packages/
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 46 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-
pyarlo/copr-build-1658979/review-python-pyarlo/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[?]: 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]: 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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x
[Bug 1877811] Review Request: python-pyarlo - Python library to interact with Netgear Arlo cameras
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877811 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Andy Mender --- python-sseclient-py was just approved. I added it to the temporary COPR rollout for Fedora IoT packages: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/andymenderunix/python-iot/build/1658978/ I'll review this one as well. -- 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 1878134] Review Request: python-sseclient-py - SSE client for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878134
Andy Mender changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
> %check
> %pytest -v tests/unittests.py
A minor thing, but maybe it's worth calling "%pytest -v" on the entire "tests"
dir? That way if upstream decides to split the tests (the unittests.py file is
pretty long) or add new ones, the SPEC file will still cover that.
The rest of the review below. Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
Note: python3-pytest4 is deprecated, you must not depend on it.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/deprecating-packages/
Review: and it doesn't.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-
sseclient-py/python-sseclient-py/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
[?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer sho
[Bug 1878134] Review Request: python-sseclient-py - SSE client for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878134 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@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 1878143] Review Request: python-uptime - Cross-platform uptime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878143
Andy Mender changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
There is a bit of a chicken and egg problem with python-uptime and tests. The
project itself provides tests so it's possible to add a %check phase to the
SPEC file to enable testing. However, the project doesn't use GitHub release
tarballs and versioning is limited to PyPi (via setup.py). We can ask upstream
whether it would be okay for them to start generating git release tags as part
of their PyPi-centric version-bumping routine.
What do you think?
Regardless, everything looks in order so package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
Review: not quite sure what fedora-review means here. There is a SO file
inside %{python3_sitearch}/%{pypi_name}/ called
_posix.cpython-39-x86_64-linux-gnu.so,
but it's an internal module for python-uptime.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Unknown or generated". 6
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-uptime/python-
uptime/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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
[Bug 1878488] Review Request: perl-String-TtyLength - Length or width of string excluding ANSI tty codes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878488 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1876823 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876823 [Bug 1876823] perl-Text-Table-Tiny-1.02 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 1878488] New: Review Request: perl-String-TtyLength - Length or width of string excluding ANSI tty codes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878488 Bug ID: 1878488 Summary: Review Request: perl-String-TtyLength - Length or width of string excluding ANSI tty codes Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: emman...@seyman.fr QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-String-TtyLength/perl-String-TtyLength.spec SRPM URL: http://people.parinux.org/~seyman/fedora/perl-String-TtyLength/perl-String-TtyLength-0.02-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: This module provides two functions which tell you the length and width of a string as it will appear on a terminal (tty), excluding any ANSI escape codes. Fedora Account System Username: eseyman Rpmlint Output: perl-String-TtyLength.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tty -> try, ttys, atty perl-String-TtyLength.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tty -> try, ttys, atty perl-String-TtyLength.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tty -> try, ttys, atty perl-String-TtyLength.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tty -> try, ttys, atty 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1878143] Review Request: python-uptime - Cross-platform uptime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878143 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value 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 1837107] Review Request: 7kaa - Seven Kingdoms: Ancient Adversaries (claiming ownership of package)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837107 --- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-ba4ff0908c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-ba4ff0908c -- 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 1837107] Review Request: 7kaa - Seven Kingdoms: Ancient Adversaries (claiming ownership of package)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837107 --- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-021483c324 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-021483c324 -- 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 1878350] Review Request: gammastep - Adjusts the color temperature of your screen according to time of day
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878350
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
> %files indicator
> %{_bindir}/%{name}-indicator
> %{_datadir}/applications/%{name}-indicator.desktop
> %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/%{name}-status-*.svg
> %{_metainfodir}/%{name}-indicator.appdata.xml
> %{_userunitdir}/%{name}-indicator.service
> %{python3_sitelib}/%{name}_indicator/
If the gammastep-indicator subpackage is a regular Python package, it should
(if possible) provide egg-info like so:
> %{python3_sitelib}/gammastep-indicator-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info/
Please, ignore this comment if that's not the case :).
Full review below. There are quite some extra warnings from fedora-review, but
some of them might be noise.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- systemd_user_post is invoked in %post and systemd_user_preun in %preun
for Systemd user units service files.
Note: Systemd user unit service file(s) in gammastep, gammastep-indicator
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Scriptlets/#_user_units
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GPL (v3)", "NTP License
(legal disclaimer)". 110 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/gammastep/copr-
build-1651081/review-gammastep/licensecheck.txt
Review: The src/gamma-control.xml file has an extra in-code legal
disclaimer
that resembles the MIT license. Please, have a look at it.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Review: since the gammastep-indicator subpackage does not explicitly
Requires
the main gammastep package, one should add the license file to it as well.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/user,
/usr/lib/systemd
Review: please, make gammastep own these dirs or add the necessary
Requires.
[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
[?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop
[Bug 1877873] Review Request: python-soco - Python library to control Sonos speakers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877873 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-8a70917009 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-8a70917009 -- 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 1837107] Review Request: 7kaa - Seven Kingdoms: Ancient Adversaries (claiming ownership of package)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837107 --- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-8a63eb6948 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-8a63eb6948 -- 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 1878350] Review Request: gammastep - Adjusts the color temperature of your screen according to time of day
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878350 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value 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 1876911] Review Request: python-sortedcollections - Python Sorted Collections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876911 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1876911] Review Request: python-sortedcollections - Python Sorted Collections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876911 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Andy Mender --- > Added. Sorry for the additional work because I was too lazy to make a scratch > build. Thanks. Absolutely no worries! Just happy to help and move this along :). 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 1877886] Review Request: python-vsure - Read and change status of verisure devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877886 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-371ae1410d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-371ae1410d -- 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 1876911] Review Request: python-sortedcollections - Python Sorted Collections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876911 --- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #3) > Since the tests were added to %check, now one needs an explicit > BuildRequires on python-sortedcontainers, otherwise the build fails. > > The below line is needed: > > BuildRequires: python3dist(sortedcontainers) Added. Sorry for the additional work because I was too lazy to make a scratch build. Thanks. %changelog * Sun Sep 13 2020 Fabian Affolter - 1.2.1-3 - Add missing BR Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-sortedcollections.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-sortedcollections-1.2.1-3.fc32.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1876911] Review Request: python-sortedcollections - Python Sorted Collections
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876911 --- Comment #3 from Andy Mender --- Since the tests were added to %check, now one needs an explicit BuildRequires on python-sortedcontainers, otherwise the build fails. Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=51353681 COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/andymenderunix/python-iot/build/1658877/ The below line is needed: > BuildRequires: python3dist(sortedcontainers) Here's a COPR build on several Fedora archs with above line added: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/andymenderunix/python-iot/build/1658883/ -- 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 1860688] Review Request: epic5 - irc client (currently retired)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1860688 --- Comment #7 from Andy Mender --- > I haven't requested the package be un-retired yet as I don't have a sponsor. > My intention was to request un-retirement once I knew I could get the new > package into the repos. Right, I forgot about that, sorry! Have a look at this guide perhaps: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group Also, ping the fedora-devel mailing list again to make sure people are aware that you 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 1862842] Review Request: icon - Icon programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862842 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Andy Mender --- > The easiest thing to do for the xpm library is delete the bundled library and > use the system library in its place. I now have that working. Awesome! > I could move icall.h to a -devel subpackage, but it would be the only file in > that subpackage, which is why I hadn't done that. If you really think that's > the right thing, I'll do it. I had a look at the icall.h header. I don't think it's worth creating a separate -devel package. You can keep it in the main package. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's needed by the main Icon binary itself, right? As for versioning of the SO file, if the shared library is internal to Icon, it doesn't need to be versioned. There was a new release recently: https://github.com/gtownsend/icon/releases/tag/v9.5.20i Could you bump the version in the SPEC file accordingly? :) Other than that, 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 1878234] Review Request: rust-picky-asn1 - Provide ASN.1 simple types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878234 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl --- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Problem: nothing provides requested (crate(oid/serde_support) >= 0.2.0 with crate(oid/serde_support) < 0.3.0) -- 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
