date:20200926

[Bug 1882978] Review Request: R-pkgcache - Cache 'CRAN'-Like Metadata and R Packages

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882978

Elliott Sales de Andrade  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1882970
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882970
[Bug 1882970] Review Request: R-presser - Lightweight Web Server for Testing
-- 
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 1882970] Review Request: R-presser - Lightweight Web Server for Testing

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882970

Elliott Sales de Andrade  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1882978





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882978
[Bug 1882978] Review Request: R-pkgcache - Cache 'CRAN'-Like Metadata and R
Packages
-- 
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 1882910] Review Request: python-nrf24 - Library for NRF24L01 communication

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882910



--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter  ---
Thanks for the review.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1882978] New: Review Request: R-pkgcache - Cache 'CRAN'-Like Metadata and R Packages

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882978

Bug ID: 1882978
   Summary: Review Request: R-pkgcache - Cache 'CRAN'-Like
Metadata and R Packages
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: quantum.anal...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-pkgcache.spec
SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-pkgcache-1.1.0-1.fc32.src.rpm

Description:
Metadata and package cache for CRAN-like repositories. This is a utility
package to be used by package management tools that want to take advantage
of caching.


-- 
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 1882970] New: Review Request: R-presser - Lightweight Web Server for Testing

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882970

Bug ID: 1882970
   Summary: Review Request: R-presser - Lightweight Web Server for
Testing
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: quantum.anal...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/R-presser/R-presser.spec
SRPM URL:
https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/reviews/R-presser/R-presser-1.1.0-1.fc32.src.rpm

Description:
Create a web app that makes it easier to test web clients without using the
internet. It includes a web app framework with path matching and parameters
and templates. Can parse various 'HTTP' request bodies. Can send 'JSON'
data or files from the disk. Includes a web app that implements the
 web service.


Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52339056


-- 
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 1882908] Review Request: kernelshark - GUI analysis for Ftrace data captured by trace-cmd

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882908



--- Comment #2 from Zamir SUN  ---
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1)
> Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52316193
> 
> > License: GPLv2 and LGPLv2
> 
> Is it clear which parts use which license? If so, could you indicate that in
> a comment above the line?

They do have SPDX-License-Identifier, but I'm reluctant to add such comment.
It's not differ per dir, but rather per file. Maintaining such a comment is
kind of wasting time for packaging.

> > %install
> > libdir=%{_libdir} make libdir=%{_libdir} prefix=%{_prefix} V=1 
> > DESTDIR=%{buildroot}/ CFLAGS="%{optflags} -D_GNU_SOURCE" 
> > LDFLAGS="%{build_ldflags} -z muldefs " BUILD_TYPE=Release install_gui
> 
> Why is "libdir" also defined as an environment variable for this command?
> 

That was to workaround a bug before. Just tried now it works without the
environment var.

Updated in-place.
SPEC URL: https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/kernelshark/kernelshark.spec
SRPM URL:
https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/kernelshark/kernelshark-1.1-1.fc34.src.rpm

Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52333193


-- 
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 1881183] Review Request: freeorion - Turn-based space empire and galactic conquest (4X) computer game

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881183



--- Comment #6 from Link Dupont  ---
I'm also not able to build the RPM on Fedora 32.

> {standard input}: Assembler messages:
> {standard input}:1912378: Warning: end of file not at end of a line; newline 
> inserted
> c++: fatal error: Killed signal terminated program cc1plus


-- 
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 1878976] Review Request: python-bravado-core - Library for adding Swagger support to clients and servers

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878976

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2020-09-27 01:57:23



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-55391c26d2 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 1878529] Review Request: iotop-c - Simple top-like I/O monitor (implemented in C)

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878529



--- Comment #6 from Boian Bonev  ---
Update to version 1.14:

Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bbonev/iotop/fedora/fedora/iotop-c.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/bbonev/iotop/raw/fedora/fedora/iotop-c-1.14-1.fc32.src.rpm

Obviously the spec links in previous messages point to the latest one and 1.11
SRPM is no longer valid...


-- 
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 1881183] Review Request: freeorion - Turn-based space empire and galactic conquest (4X) computer game

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881183

Link Dupont  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(cheese@nosuchhost
   ||.net)



--- Comment #5 from Link Dupont  ---
Have you tried building on both rawhide and fedora-33-x86_64? I see CMake
errors when building for fedora-33.


-- 
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 1878898] Review Request: nwg-launchers - GTK-based launchers for sway and other window managers

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878898

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2020-09-27 00:15:32



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-da9aac64c2 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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 1881183] Review Request: freeorion - Turn-based space empire and galactic conquest (4X) computer game

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881183

Link Dupont  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||l...@sub-pop.net
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|l...@sub-pop.net




-- 
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 1880701] Review Request: python-hangups - Python instant messaging client for Hangouts

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880701
Bug 1880701 depends on bug 1880697, which changed state.

Bug 1880697 Summary: Review Request: python-mechanicalsoup - Python library for 
automating interaction with websites
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880697

   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 1880697] Review Request: python-mechanicalsoup - Python library for automating interaction with websites

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880697

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2020-09-27 00:16:25



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-d07e0be283 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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 1880695] Review Request: python-readlike - Readline-like line editing module

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880695

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2020-09-27 00:16:13



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-66ea85f510 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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 1880694] Review Request: python-reparser - Simple regex-based lexer/parser for inline markup

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880694

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2020-09-27 00:16:08



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-4066dd25b8 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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 1880701] Review Request: python-hangups - Python instant messaging client for Hangouts

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880701
Bug 1880701 depends on bug 1880695, which changed state.

Bug 1880695 Summary: Review Request: python-readlike - Readline-like line 
editing module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880695

   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 1880701] Review Request: python-hangups - Python instant messaging client for Hangouts

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880701
Bug 1880701 depends on bug 1880694, which changed state.

Bug 1880694 Summary: Review Request: python-reparser - Simple regex-based 
lexer/parser for inline markup
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880694

   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 1882908] Review Request: kernelshark - GUI analysis for Ftrace data captured by trace-cmd

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882908



--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender  ---
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52316193

> License: GPLv2 and LGPLv2

Is it clear which parts use which license? If so, could you indicate that in a
comment above the line?

> Patch0: 0001-kernel-shark-Fix-dependency-symbol-resolving-issue.patch
> Patch1: 0001-Do-not-install-trace-cmd-when-only-building-kernelsh.patch

I think the names of the patches explain what these are for, but if there are
any upstream tickets related to these, I would add them as comments above the
Patch lines.

> BuildRequires: trace-cmd-libs
> BuildRequires: trace-cmd-devel
> BuildRequires: gcc
> BuildRequires: xmlto
> BuildRequires: graphviz doxygen
> BuildRequires: libxml2-devel
> BuildRequires: gcc-c++
> BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils
> BuildRequires: libappstream-glib
> BuildRequires: cmake
> BuildRequires: qt5-qtbase-devel
> BuildRequires: freeglut-devel
> BuildRequires: json-c-devel

Not a big thing, but could you sort these alphabetically? More importantly, for
-devel packages which provide pkgconfig files, please use the "pkgconfig(foo)"
format.

> %install
> libdir=%{_libdir} make libdir=%{_libdir} prefix=%{_prefix} V=1 
> DESTDIR=%{buildroot}/ CFLAGS="%{optflags} -D_GNU_SOURCE" 
> LDFLAGS="%{build_ldflags} -z muldefs " BUILD_TYPE=Release install_gui

Why is "libdir" also defined as an environment variable for this command?

Full review below:

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
  in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
  for the package is included in %license.
  Note: License file COPYING.LIB is not marked as %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
  Review: Is it a license file? Somehow I don't think so.


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
 Review: Are these for internal use by the package? If so, they don't 
 to be versioned.
[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* GNU General Public
 License (v2.0) GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1)", "GNU Lesser
 General Public License", "GPL (v2 or later)". 222 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/kernelshark/kernelshark/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.
 Review: see, earlier comment.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/polkit-1/actions,
 /usr/share/polkit-1
 Review: Add Requires for polkit?
[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]: 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

[Bug 1882908] Review Request: kernelshark - GUI analysis for Ftrace data captured by trace-cmd

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882908

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 1882909] Review Request: python-rak811 - Interface for RAK811 LoRa module

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882909

Andy Mender  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender  ---
Package approved. Full review below:

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= 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", "Apache License 2.0". 5 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-rak811/python-
 rak811/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.
[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 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

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 should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify

[Bug 1882910] Review Request: python-nrf24 - Library for NRF24L01 communication

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882910



--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender  ---
Package approved. See below full review for details:

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



= 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", "Expat License". 22 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-nrf24/python-
 nrf24/licensecheck.txt
 Review: Expat License = MIT. Everything okay.
[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]: 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 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 should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
 publishes signatures.
 Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Pac

[Bug 1882910] Review Request: python-nrf24 - Library for NRF24L01 communication

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882910

Andy Mender  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |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 1882909] Review Request: python-rak811 - Interface for RAK811 LoRa module

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882909

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 1882910] Review Request: python-nrf24 - Library for NRF24L01 communication

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882910

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 1878903] Review Request: jmol - Java viewer for chemical structures in 3D

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878903



--- Comment #4 from Andy Mender  ---
Thanks a lot for packaging Jmol! I remember using it quite a bit during my PhD
studies. 

COPR project with jmol and its dependency naga:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/andymenderunix/jmol/
If you'd like to get write access to it, please request permissions via COPR
:).

> Name:   jmol
> Version:14.31.4
> Release:1%{?dist}
> Summary:Java viewer for chemical structures in 3D

A couple of new versions were recently released, newest being 14.31.8:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/jmol/files/Jmol/Version%2014.31/Jmol%2014.31.8/

> Requires:   apache-commons-cli
> Requires:   hicolor-icon-theme
> Requires:   java
> Requires:   javapackages-tools
> Requires:   naga
The Java Packaging Guidelines mention also that a Requires on
javapackages-filesystem and java-headless should be added as well:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/#_buildrequires_and_requires
> Requires:   java-headless
> Requires:   javapackages-filesystem

> %files -n jsmol
> %doc appletweb/jsmol/README.TXT
> %{_jsdir}/jsmol/

If jsmol is an independent package, it needs to provide its own license file
with the %license macro. If it's not independent, it needs to explicitly
Requires the main jmol package:
> Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

> # Icons from Nuvola are included, but at different sizes than Fedora provides
> Provides:   bundled(nuvola-icon-theme)

Is the license on this icon set compatible with the other licenses?

Full review below:

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/
- This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java
  to get additional checks
  Review: not maintained anymore.
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jmol
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
  Review: It's fine, since it's a re-review of a retired package.


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
 Note: Using prebuilt packages
 Review: Tested in COPR. 
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License
 (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* IBM Public License 1.0", "BSD
 2-clause "Simplified" License", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
 address)", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License GNU Lesser General
 Public License (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2)", "*No copyright* GNU
 Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "GNU Lesser General
 Public License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "*No
 copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons
 Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License". 840 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/jmol/jmol/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
 Review: missing in jsmol.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
 Review: contains 3 bundled libraries. Were FPC exceptions granted for
these?
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
 Review: Yes, but should include past entries as suggested by Susi Lehtola.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
 Review: Obsoletes for jspecview properly indicated.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
 Review: yes, but see earlier comments.
[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

[Bug 1878903] Review Request: jmol - Java viewer for chemical structures in 3D

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878903

Andy Mender  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   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 1878902] Review Request: naga - Simplified Java NIO asynchronous sockets

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878902



--- Comment #3 from Andy Mender  ---
> The wording is a bit unclear there.  It means that if the main package is 
> architecture-specific, then the javadoc package must explicitly be marked as 
> noarch.  In the case where the main package is noarch, all subpackages are 
> implicitly noarch.  Either way, you get a noarch javadoc package.

Yes, I see now that the guideline about javadoc can be understood in a couple
of ways:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/#_javadoc_installation

Since the main package is noarch, I agree it's fine as it is now.

> Well, I can ask.  The last upstream activity was 5 1/2 years ago, so I'm not 
> optimistic about the result.  In any case, all of the *.java files carry the 
> full license at the top.

There is a couple of ways this can be handled covered here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

The thing is that a license file should be added independently of whether the
source files contain a license text/comment or not, since it's an aspect of
packaging. As a packager you *can* add the text of the MIT license as an extra
file to the package, for instance taking the license text included in one of
the source files.

Upstream inactivity is a different matter. I had a look at the GitHub
timestamps again and most files were modified 6-12 years ago. I'd say the
project is effectively dead, in which case responsibility for any bugfixes,
improvements, etc. lies with the packager :(.

For now please add an extra MIT license file with the %license macro and
contact upstream if possible.


-- 
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 1882121] Review Request: fennel - A Lisp that compiles to Lua

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882121

Stefano Figura  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Stefano Figura  ---
Reviewer Notes:

There is this SHOULD item you might want to investigate:

[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.

- ACCEPT
- Looks go to me!

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: 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". 101 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/returntrip/1882121-fennel/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 112640 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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
 publishes signatures.
 Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be i

[Bug 1882121] Review Request: fennel - A Lisp that compiles to Lua

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882121

Stefano Figura  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||stef...@figura.im
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|stef...@figura.im
  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 1882910] Review Request: python-nrf24 - Library for NRF24L01 communication

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882910

Fabian Affolter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1269538 (IoT)
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538
[Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on 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 1882910] New: Review Request: python-nrf24 - Library for NRF24L01 communication

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882910

Bug ID: 1882910
   Summary: Review Request: python-nrf24 - Library for NRF24L01
communication
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-nrf24.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-nrf24-1.1.1-1.fc32.src.rpm

Project URL: https://github.com/bjarne-hansen/py-nrf24

Description:
This package implement 2.4 Ghz communication using NRF24L01
modules on a Raspberry Pi using Python.

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52295493

rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint python-nrf24-1.1.1-1.fc32.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint python3-nrf24-1.1.1-1.fc32.noarch.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Fedora Account System Username: fab


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1882909] Review Request: python-rak811 - Interface for RAK811 LoRa module

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882909

Fabian Affolter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1269538 (IoT)
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538
[Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on 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 1882908] New: Review Request: kernelshark - GUI analysis for Ftrace data captured by trace-cmd

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882908

Bug ID: 1882908
   Summary: Review Request: kernelshark - GUI analysis for Ftrace
data captured by trace-cmd
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: szts...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



SPEC URL: https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/kernelshark/kernelshark.spec
SRPM URL:
https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/kernelshark/kernelshark-1.1-1.fc34.src.rpm

Description:

Kernelshark is the GUI frontend for analyse date captured by trace-cmd.
Historically it is part of trace-cmd. However, now kernelshark have different
version from trace-cmd, and the upstream maintainer also mention that they
willo move kernelshark into a separate repo in the future, so as the trace-cmd
maintainer in Fedora, I'm filing this review to get kernelshark separated from
trace-cmd.

Fedora Account System Username: zsun


Note for "[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro."
The trace-cmd and kernelshark project both do not support parallel compiling.
If compile in parallel, it will fail randomly for missing symbol.


-- 
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 1882909] New: Review Request: python-rak811 - Interface for RAK811 LoRa module

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882909

Bug ID: 1882909
   Summary: Review Request: python-rak811 - Interface for RAK811
LoRa module
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-rak811.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-rak811-0.7.3-1.fc32.src.rpm

Project URL: https://github.com/AmedeeBulle/pyrak811

Description:
Python 3 library and command-line interface for use with the Raspberry
Pi LoRa pHAT.The library exposes the AT commands as described in the
RAK811 Lora AT Command User Guide V1.4.

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52294840

rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint python-rak811-0.7.3-1.fc32.src.rpm 
python-rak811.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pHAT -> phat, fat,
pat
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

$ rpmlint python3-rak811-0.7.3-1.fc32.noarch.rpm 
python3-rak811.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pHAT -> phat,
fat, pat
python3-rak811.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rak811
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Fedora Account System Username: fab


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1882903] New: Review Request: python-enturclient - API client for data from Entur.org

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882903

Bug ID: 1882903
   Summary: Review Request: python-enturclient - API client for
data from Entur.org
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-enturclient.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-enturclient-0.2.1-1.fc32.src.rpm

Project URL: https://github.com/hfurubotten/enturclient

Description:
Python client for fetching estimated departures from stop places in
Norway from Entur.org's API.

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52293934

rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint python-enturclient-0.2.1-1.fc32.src.rpm 
python-enturclient.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US org's ->
orgy's, Borg's, ore's
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

$ rpmlint python3-enturclient-0.2.1-1.fc32.noarch.rpm 
python3-enturclient.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US org's ->
orgy's, Borg's, ore's
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Fedora Account System Username: fab


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1882903] Review Request: python-enturclient - API client for data from Entur.org

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882903

Fabian Affolter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1269538 (IoT)
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538
[Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on 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 1882871] Review Request: xmake - A cross-platform build utility based on Lua

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882871

Artur Frenszek-Iwicki  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||fed...@svgames.pl
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value



--- Comment #2 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki  ---
>Source0:
>https://github.com/xmake-io/xmake/archive/%{xmake_branch}.tar.gz#/xmake-%{xmake_branch}.tar.gz
>Source1:
>https://github.com/tboox/tbox/archive/%{tbox_branch}.tar.gz#/tbox-%{tbox_branch}.tar.gz
>Source2:
>https://github.com/xmake-io/xmake-core-luajit/archive/v%{luajit_branch}.tar.gz#/xmake-core-luajit-
Links to a branch point to, well, a branch - which is a moving target. If you
re-fetch these links a year from now, the file will be different. You should
specify links which will always return the same file. With GitHub, you can
reference a git tag, or a specific commit.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/

>License:Apache-2.0
Fedora uses the "ASL 2.0" short identifier for this licence.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses

>%build
>make build
1. You need to call the %set_build_flags macro to ensure that Fedora's CXXFLAGS
are set properly.
2. Use the %make_build macro.

>cp -r xmake %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name}
>cp core/src/demo/demo.b %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name}
Use "cp -a" or "cp -p" so that file timestamps are preserved.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_timestamps

>%clean
>rm -rf %{buildroot}
The %clean section is not used in Fedora.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_sections


-- 
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 1882899] New: Review Request: scout - Lightweight URL fuzzer and spider

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882899

Bug ID: 1882899
   Summary: Review Request: scout - Lightweight URL fuzzer and
spider
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/scout.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/scout-0.12.0-1.fc32.src.rpm

Project URL: https://github.com/liamg/scout

Description:
A lightweight URL fuzzer and spider: Discover a web server's undisclosed files,
directories and VHOSTs.

Koji scratch build:
fails due to missing dependencies

rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint scout-0.12.0-1.fc32.src.rpm 
scout.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fuzzer -> fuzzier, fuzzes, fuzzed
scout.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fuzzer -> fuzzier, fuzzes,
fuzzed
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

$ rpmlint scout*
scout.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fuzzer -> fuzzier, fuzzes,
fuzzed
scout.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fuzzer -> fuzzier,
fuzzes, fuzzed
scout.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary scout
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Fedora Account System Username: fab


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1882898] New: Review Request: golang-github-avast-retry - Simple golang library for retry mechanism

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882898

Bug ID: 1882898
   Summary: Review Request: golang-github-avast-retry - Simple
golang library for retry mechanism
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/golang-github-avast-retry.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/golang-github-avast-retry-2.6.1-1.fc32.src.rpm

Project URL: https://github.com/avast/retry-go

Description:
Simple golang library for retry mechanism.

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52292235

rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint golang-github-avast-retry-2.6.1-1.fc32.src.rpm 
golang-github-avast-retry.src: W: no-%build-section
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

$ rpmlint golang-github-avast-retry-devel-2.6.1-1.fc32.noarch.rpm 
golang-github-avast-retry-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/avast/retry-go/.goipath
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Fedora Account System Username: fab


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1882895] New: Review Request: golang-github-liamg-tml - Markup language for terminal output

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882895

Bug ID: 1882895
   Summary: Review Request: golang-github-liamg-tml - Markup
language for terminal output
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/golang-github-liamg-tml.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/golang-github-liamg-tml-0.3.0-1.fc32.src.rpm

Project URL: https://github.com/liamg/tml

Description:
A Go module (and standalone binary) to make the output of
colored/formatted text in the terminal easier and more
readable.

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52291399

rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint golang-github-liamg-tml-0.3.0-1.fc32.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint golang-github-liamg-tml-devel-0.3.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm 
golang-github-liamg-tml-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/liamg/tml/.goipath
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Fedora Account System Username: fab


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1882872] Review Request: xmake - A cross-platform build utility based on Lua

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882872

Fabian Affolter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Last Closed||2020-09-26 07:59:05



--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter  ---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1882871 ***


-- 
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 1882871] Review Request: xmake - A cross-platform build utility based on Lua

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882871



--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter  ---
*** Bug 1882872 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1880399] Review Request: python-smart-gardena - Python client to communicate with Gardena systems

2020-09-26 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880399



--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter  ---
%changelog
* Sat Sep 26 2020 Fabian Affolter  - 0.7.10-1
- Shebang issue was fixed upstream
- Update to latest upstream release 0.7.10

Updated files:
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-smart-gardena.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-smart-gardena-0.7.10-1.fc32.src.rpm


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

44 matches

Mail list logo