[Bug 1919368] Review Request: gnome-break-timer - Break timer application for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919368 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-6c44c6360f has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-6c44c6360f \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6c44c6360f 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 1897434] Review Request: ghc-haxr - XML-RPC client and server library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897434 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2021-01-23 01:30:10 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-4b38fc1294 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 1829523] Review Request: python-pysam - reading, manipulating and writing genomic data sets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829523 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-0c3ac0f9e1 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 1919368] Review Request: gnome-break-timer - Break timer application for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919368 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-fce0cef0e5 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-fce0cef0e5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-fce0cef0e5 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 1919003] Review Request: dnf-plugin-cow - Enable RPMCoW in DNF
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919003 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Looks fine, APPROVED. Will sponsor now - welcome aboard, Matthew! -- 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 1919003] Review Request: dnf-plugin-cow - Enable RPMCoW in DNF
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919003 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) 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 1919003] Review Request: dnf-plugin-cow - Enable RPMCoW in DNF
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919003 Matthew Almond changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/malmond/rpmcow/fedora-33-x86_64/01897627-dnf-plugin-cow/dnf-plugin-cow.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/malmond/rpmcow/fedora-33-x86_64/01897627-dnf-plugin-cow/dnf-plugin-cow-0.0.2-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Source package for DNF plugin to enable Copy on Write in DNF and RPM. Fedora Account System Username: malmond See https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2534. The other two packages needed for the change in Fedora 34 already exist, they just need patched and/or updated. This single package produces one tiny package that ties it all together. -- 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 1917998] Review Request: oc-inject - Copy an executable to an OpenShift container and run it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917998 Serhei Makarov changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #6 from Serhei Makarov --- fche, Thanks for the review. Setting FE-NEEDSPONSOR since it looks like I do need it to proceed with the next step. 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 1919368] Review Request: gnome-break-timer - Break timer application for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919368 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-fce0cef0e5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-fce0cef0e5 -- 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 1914637] Review Request: python-boututils - Utils for post processing of BOUT++ simulations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914637 --- Comment #6 from c...@musicinmybrain.net --- Created attachment 1749881 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1749881=edit Log showing installation error This shows that the error installing python3-boututils+mayavi-0.1.7-0.1.fc34.noarch.rpm is due to a problem with the indirect dependency python3-pyface, not a defect in this package. -- 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 1914637] Review Request: python-boututils - Utils for post processing of BOUT++ simulations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914637
c...@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from c...@musicinmybrain.net ---
Thanks, approved. Changes from original review below:
= Issues =
All previous issues remedied.
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
See attached root.log. I have determined that the problem is actually in
python3-pyface, which gets brought in by the mayavi extra. I also tested
installing the main package manually and confirmed it installs properly.
Therefore, there is no problem with your submission.
Instead, I filed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919444.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[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,
Version 3", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or
later". 47 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/reviewer/1914637-python-boututils/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Python:
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-boututils , python3-boututils+mayavi
[x]: Package functions as described.
(That should have been marked before.)
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: Mock build failed
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_use_rpmlint
This is due to the python3-pyface bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919444, not a
defect in this submission. Therefore it should be a PASS [x].
Installation errors
---
INFO: mock.py version 2.8 starting (python version = 3.9.1, NVR =
mock-2.8-1.fc33)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
INFO: Signal handler active
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled package manager cache
Start: cleaning package manager metadata
Finish: cleaning package manager metadata
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
Mock Version: 2.8
INFO: Mock Version: 2.8
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s):
/home/reviewer/1914637-python-boututils/results/python3-boututils-0.1.7-0.1.fc34.noarch.rpm
/home/reviewer/1914637-python-boututils/results/python3-boututils+mayavi-0.1.7-0.1.fc34.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed:
# /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/
--releasever 34 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local
--disableplugin=spacewalk install
/home/reviewer/1914637-python-boututils/results/python3-boututils-0.1.7-0.1.fc34.noarch.rpm
/home/reviewer/1914637-python-boututils/results/python3-boututils+mayavi-0.1.7-0.1.fc34.noarch.rpm
--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
Rpmlint
---
Checking: python3-boututils-0.1.7-0.1.fc34.noarch.rpm
python3-boututils+mayavi-0.1.7-0.1.fc34.noarch.rpm
python-boututils-0.1.7-0.1.fc34.src.rpm
python3-boututils.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Utils ->
Tills
python3-boututils.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary
python3-boututils+mayavi.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Metapackage
-> Meta package, Meta-package, Prepackage
python3-boututils+mayavi.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) boututils ->
boutiques
python3-boututils+mayavi.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) mayavi ->
mayday
python3-boututils+mayavi.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
metapackage -> meta package, meta-package, prepackage
python3-boututils+mayavi.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mayavi
-> mayday
python3-boututils+mayavi.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
boututils -> boutiques
python3-boututils+mayavi.noarch: W: no-documentation
python-boututils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Utils -> Tills
python-boututils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US postprocessing ->
post processing, post-processing, teleprocessing
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.
Source checksums
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/b/boututils/boututils-0.1.7.tar.gz
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
84f22fe0271bad5fd1490088c16b9894557d199821d84d1acc15cc1ac6b935bf
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
[Bug 1914739] Review Request: rteval Measure realtime behavior under load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914739
--- Comment #3 from Jiri Kastner ---
dependencies:
rt-tests => realtime-tests
probably add stress-ng
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text
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/
- 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 is not marked as %license
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or
generated", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General
Public License, Version 2 [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]",
"GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address
(Temple Place)]", "GNU General Public License", "BSD 2-clause
"Simplified" License". 38 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/indy/packaging/review/review-
rteval/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/rteval,
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/rteval/__pycache__
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.9/site-
packages/rteval/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/rteval
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 3 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not
[Bug 1919368] Review Request: gnome-break-timer - Break timer application for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919368 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-6c44c6360f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6c44c6360f -- 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 1914740] Review Request: rteval-loads - Provide source for system loads for rteval
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914740 Jiri Kastner changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1914739 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914739 [Bug 1914739] Review Request: rteval Measure realtime behavior under load -- 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 1914739] Review Request: rteval Measure realtime behavior under load
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914739 Jiri Kastner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cz172...@gmail.com Depends On||1914740 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914740 [Bug 1914740] Review Request: rteval-loads - Provide source for system loads for rteval -- 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 1912855] Review Request: fcft - Simple library for font loading and glyph rasterization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912855
c...@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from c...@musicinmybrain.net ---
> 1. meson already uses ninja […]
This is a little embarrassing, speaking as a regular meson user who knows this
perfectly well. I can only plead that I have, as you guessed, reviewed or
maintained far too many cmake-based packages lately. Please ignore this
finding.
> 2. As per change discussion, BR: make is not needed for meson or cmake
> projects unless make is used in the spec file explicitly.
I had missed this in the discussion, and it’s welcome knowledge. Thanks.
> I feel that it defeats the whole purpose of pkgconfig(...) macros, but
> applied anyways.
I tend to agree. I think that it’s supposed to help find packages that must be
rebuilt in case of a security update, but I don’t see why a …-devel or
pkgconfig(…) BR isn’t sufficient in most cases. Besides, libraries that have a
compiled portion, but have significant functionality in inline functions, are
functionally similar (rebuilding the shared object only may not be sufficient
for a security update) but not subject to the same rule. Anyway, the guidelines
are clear enough that there’s no wiggle room, I think.
Approved, with full re-review below.
=
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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", "*No copyright* Expat
License". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1912855-fcft/re-
review/1912855-fcft/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]:
[Bug 1914652] Review Request: python-boutdata - read BOUT++ simulation data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914652 david08...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from david08...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/davidsch/testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01897459-python-boutdata/python-boutdata.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/davidsch/testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01897459-python-boutdata/python-boutdata-0.1.3-0.1.fc34.src.rpm Updated to new version + other improvements -- 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 1914637] Review Request: python-boututils - Utils for post processing of BOUT++ simulations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914637 david08...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(david08741@gmail. | |com)| --- Comment #4 from david08...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/davidsch/testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01897447-python-boututils/python-boututils.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/davidsch/testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01897447-python-boututils/python-boututils-0.1.7-0.1.fc34.src.rpm Thanks, the pyproject-rpm-macros are quite nice. I removed the shebangs upstream, so that isn't needed anymore. I don't think the extra package isn't required[1], but added it anyway. 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 1912856] Review Request: foot - Fast, lightweight and minimalistic Wayland terminal emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912856 Aleksei Bavshin changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01897386-foot/foot.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01897386-foot/foot-1.6.2-0.1.fc34.src.rpm Copr URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/alebastr/sway-extras/ Description: Fast, lightweight and minimalistic Wayland terminal emulator. Features: * Fast * Lightweight, in dependencies, on-disk and in-memory * Wayland native * DE agnostic * User configurable font fallback * On-the-fly font resize * On-the-fly DPI font size adjustment * Scrollback search * Color emoji support * Server/daemon mode * Multi-seat * Synchronized Updates support * Sixel image support Review notes: terminfo is a subpackage that doesn't depend on the main one because: a) it is not required (i.e. foot could be configured to use another TERM definition) b) it could be installed without the main package (i.e. on remote server for ssh access) Fedora Account System Username: alebastr -- 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 1919368] Review Request: gnome-break-timer - Break timer application for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919368 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-break-timer -- 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 1919368] Review Request: gnome-break-timer - Break timer application for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919368 Vitaly Zaitsev changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Vitaly Zaitsev --- These minor issues can be fixed during importing to Fedora SCM. 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 1919368] Review Request: gnome-break-timer - Break timer application for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919368 --- Comment #4 from Vitaly Zaitsev --- > Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Please add BuildRequires: gcc. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dbus-1 Please add Requires: dbus-common. -- 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 1919368] Review Request: gnome-break-timer - Break timer application for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919368
--- Comment #3 from Vitaly Zaitsev ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dbus-1,
/usr/share/dbus-1/services
[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.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: 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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 92160 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file
[Bug 1919368] Review Request: gnome-break-timer - Break timer application for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919368 Vitaly Zaitsev changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||vit...@easycoding.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vit...@easycoding.org Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Vitaly Zaitsev --- I will review this package. -- 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 1912855] Review Request: fcft - Simple library for font loading and glyph rasterization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912855 Aleksei Bavshin changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(alebastr89@gmail. | |com)| --- Comment #2 from Aleksei Bavshin --- (In reply to code from comment #1) Thanks for the review! > - Need to document breakdown of multiple licenses in spec file. > A comment above the License field like the following would suffice. Thanks for catching this, fixed in new revision. I thought I've already done that... > - A new change in Fedora 34 is that make is not included in the buildroot. > While gcc currently pulls in make as a transitive dependency, this could > change. You must add a BR on make. (I think this is still not in the > Guidelines.) Or, do “%meson -GNinja” and add a BR on ninja-build instead. 1. meson already uses ninja and doesn't support other generators on Linux. I think you're confusing it with cmake. 2. As per change discussion, BR: make is not needed for meson or cmake projects unless make is used in the spec file explicitly. It's the job of cmake and meson packages to depend on the appropriate generator. The common consent was that for %meson/%meson_build/... and %cmake/%cmake_build/... families of macros the packager is not aware of the default generator and should not care about it. > - Since tllist is a header-only library, you must BR tllist-static, even > though you already BR pkgconfig(tllist). A little silly, I think, but > mandatory. I feel that it defeats the whole purpose of pkgconfig(...) macros, but applied anyways. Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01896898-fcft/fcft.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01896898-fcft/fcft-2.3.2-0.1.fc34.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 1919368] New: Review Request: gnome-break-timer - Break timer application for GNOME
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919368 Bug ID: 1919368 Summary: Review Request: gnome-break-timer - Break timer application for GNOME Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ego.corda...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/gnome-break-timer.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org/gnome-break-timer-2.0.3-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: This helps you to schedule regular breaks. It will remind you to take them based on how much you are using the computer. It tries to be simple but helpful, and it uses notifications to indicate when a break has arrived. Fedora Account System Username: atim -- 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 1917266] Review Request: qt6 - Qt6 meta package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917266 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-01-22 16:12:40 -- 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 1917271] Review Request: qt6-qtbase - Qt6 - QtBase components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917271 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-01-22 16:12:33 -- 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 1919349] Review Request: crash-trace-command - Trace extension module for the crash utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919349 d.hatay...@fujitsu.com changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from d.hatay...@fujitsu.com --- This is the first package review for me along with BZ#1919347. Note that I'm the upstream maintainer of this. -- 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 1919347] Review Request: crash-gcore-command - Gcore extension module for the crash utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919347 d.hatay...@fujitsu.com changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from d.hatay...@fujitsu.com --- This is the first package review for me along with BZ#1919349. Note that I'm the upstream maintainer of this. -- 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 1917275] Review Request: qt6-qttools - Qt6 - QtTool components
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917275 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-01-22 16:08:32 -- 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 1917276] Review Request: qt6-qtdeclarative - Qt6 - QtDeclarative component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917276 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-01-22 16:08:24 -- 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 1917281] Review Request: qt6-qtsvg - Qt6 - Support for rendering and displaying SVG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917281 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-01-22 16:08:18 -- 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 1917283] Review Request: qt6-qt5compat - Qt6 - Qt 5 Compatibility Libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917283 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-01-22 16:08:10 -- 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 1917288] Review Request: qt6-qtquick3d - Qt6 - Quick3D Libraries and utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917288 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-01-22 16:08:03 -- 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 1917289] Review Request: qt6-qtquickcontrols2 - Qt6 - module with set of QtQuick controls for embedded
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917289 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-01-22 16:07:52 -- 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 1917293] Review Request: qt6-qtquicktimeline - Qt6 - QuickTimeline plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917293 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-01-22 16:08:23 -- 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 1917295] Review Request: qt6-qtshadertools - Qt6 - Qt Shader Tools module builds on the SPIR-V Open Source Ecosystem
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917295 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-01-22 16:07:30 -- 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 1917296] Review Request: qt6-qttranslations - Qt6 - QtTranslations module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917296 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-01-22 16:07:22 -- 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 1917300] Review Request: qt6-qtwayland - Qt6 - Wayland platform support and QtCompositor module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917300 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-01-22 16:07:15 -- 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 1917323] Review Request: qt6-qtnetworkauth - Qt6 - NetworkAuth component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917323 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-01-22 16:07:05 -- 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 1917373] Review Request: qt6-qt3d - Qt6 - Qt3D QML bindings and C++ APIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917373 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-01-22 16:06:49 -- 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 1917329] Review Request: qt6-qtimageformats - Qt6 - QtImageFormats component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917329 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-01-22 16:06:42 -- 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 1919349] New: Review Request: crash-trace-command - Trace extension module for the crash utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919349 Bug ID: 1919349 Summary: Review Request: crash-trace-command - Trace extension module for the crash utility Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: d.hatay...@fujitsu.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/d-hatayama/crash-modules-fedora-package-review/master/crash-trace-command.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/d-hatayama/crash-modules-fedora-package-review/raw/master/crash-trace-command-3.0-0.fc33.src.rpm Description: Command for reading ftrace data from a dump file. Fedora Account System Username: dhat180 -- 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 1919347] New: Review Request: crash-gcore-command - Gcore extension module for the crash utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919347 Bug ID: 1919347 Summary: Review Request: crash-gcore-command - Gcore extension module for the crash utility Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: d.hatay...@fujitsu.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://raw.githubusercontent.com/d-hatayama/crash-modules-fedora-package-review/master/crash-gcore-command.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/d-hatayama/crash-modules-fedora-package-review/raw/master/crash-gcore-command-1.6.2-0.fc33.src.rpm Description: Command for creating a core dump file of a user-space task that was running in a kernel dump file. Fedora Account System Username: dhat180 -- 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 1912855] Review Request: fcft - Simple library for font loading and glyph rasterization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912855
c...@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(alebastr89@gmail.
||com)
--- Comment #1 from c...@musicinmybrain.net ---
A wonderfully clean spec file. Just a few tiny issues before I can approve it.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= Issues =
- Need to document breakdown of multiple licenses in spec file.
A comment above the License field like the following would suffice.
# The entire source code is MIT except unicode/ which is Unicode
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios
- A new change in Fedora 34 is that make is not included in the buildroot.
While gcc currently pulls in make as a transitive dependency, this could
change. You must add a BR on make. (I think this is still not in the
Guidelines.) Or, do “%meson -GNinja” and add a BR on ninja-build instead.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_make_from_BuildRoot
- Since tllist is a header-only library, you must BR tllist-static, even
though you already BR pkgconfig(tllist). A little silly, I think, but
mandatory.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_packaging_header_only_libraries
= 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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", "*No copyright* Expat
License". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1912855-fcft/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. A comment above the License field
like the following would suffice.
# The entire source code is MIT except unicode/ which is Unicode
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package
[Bug 1919273] Review Request: qqc2-breeze-style - QtQuickControls2 breeze style
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919273 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-01-22 15:35:42 -- 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 1919274] Review Request: plasma-systemmonitor - An application for monitoring system resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919274 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-01-22 15:35:33 -- 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 1912855] Review Request: fcft - Simple library for font loading and glyph rasterization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912855 c...@musicinmybrain.net changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|c...@musicinmybrain.net 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 1914292] Review Request: tkrzw - Fast key-value storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292 --- Comment #14 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tkrzw -- 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 1919274] Review Request: plasma-systemmonitor - An application for monitoring system resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919274 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/plasma-systemmonitor -- 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 1919273] Review Request: qqc2-breeze-style - QtQuickControls2 breeze style
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919273 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qqc2-breeze-style -- 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 1919295] Review Request: npm-name-cli - Check whether a package or organization name is available on npm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919295 c...@musicinmybrain.net changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from c...@musicinmybrain.net --- Comments on rpmlint messages: npm-name-cli.noarch: E: useless-provides bundled(nodejs-ansi-styles) [… many similar messages …] I do not know why rpmlint thinks this is useless, but these are the required virtual Provides for the bundled node dependencies. All node-based RPMs under the new guidelines will have them. npm-name-cli.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib All node-based RPMs will have this as well, based on the location of /usr/lib/node_modules/ (%node_sitelib). npm-name-cli.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/npm-name-cli/node_modules/.bin [… many similar messages …] Dotfiles under node_modules are normal. npm-name-cli.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/node_modules/npm-name-cli/node_modules_prod/@types/normalize-package-data/package.json [… many similar messages …] My view is that blindly attempting to correct the many extra or missing executable bits in bundled node module dependencies is a fool’s errand, more likely to accidentally break something than accomplish anything useful. (I would be willing to chmod a-x all .json files if a reviewer felt strongly about it.) npm-name-cli.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/node_modules/npm-name-cli/node_modules_prod/package-json/node_modules/@sindresorhus/is/dist/example.d.ts Again, there is no reason to go mucking around inside the bundled dependencies. npm-name-cli.src: W: no-%build-section Normal for a node-based RPM; there is nothing to do. npm-name-cli.src: W: invalid-url Source1: npm-name-cli-3.0.0-nm-prod.tgz This is the usual bundled dependencies tarball. -- 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 1919295] New: Review Request: npm-name-cli - Check whether a package or organization name is available on npm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919295 Bug ID: 1919295 Summary: Review Request: npm-name-cli - Check whether a package or organization name is available on npm Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: c...@musicinmybrain.net QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/musicinmybrain/npm-name-cli-rpm/-/raw/8fafe02f29a35217780f16897129a570113bf32b/npm-name-cli.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9933/60219933/npm-name-cli-3.0.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: The npm-name command-line tool checks whether a package or organization name is available on npm. Why would I use npm-name rather than npm’s built-in search? 1. Nicer & simpler output 2. Squatter detection (https://github.com/sholladay/squatter) 3. Supports checking the availability of organization names 4. Performance Fedora Account System Username: music Note that this package is for Fedora 34+ only, and is under the brand-new Node.js packaging guidelines at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Node.js. If you are not familiar with the recent significant changes (most notably, bundling of all dependencies), then please read through the guidelines carefully before reviewing. Thanks! Koji build for F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60219916 -- 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 1897441] Review Request: ghc-infer-license - Infer software license from a given license file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897441 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-infer-license -- 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 1897456] Review Request: ghc-OpenGLRaw - A raw binding for the OpenGL graphics system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897456 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-OpenGLRaw -- 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 1919274] Review Request: plasma-systemmonitor - An application for monitoring system resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919274 --- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa --- Note: you should fix the version listed in the changelog entry on import! -- 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 1919274] Review Request: plasma-systemmonitor - An application for monitoring system resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919274 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa --- Review notes: * Package is named correctly * Package builds and installs (when everything else is available...) * Package licensing is correctly marked and license files are correctly installed * No serious issues from rpmlint 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 1919273] Review Request: qqc2-breeze-style - QtQuickControls2 breeze style
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919273 --- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa --- Note: you should fix the version listed in the changelog entry on import! -- 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 1919273] Review Request: qqc2-breeze-style - QtQuickControls2 breeze style
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919273 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa --- Review notes: * Package is named correctly * Package builds and installs (when everything else is available...) * Package licensing is correctly marked and license files are correctly installed * No serious issues from rpmlint 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 1919273] Review Request: qqc2-breeze-style - QtQuickControls2 breeze style
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919273 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||656997 (kde-reviews) Alias||qqc2-breeze-style Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656997 [Bug 656997] kde-related package review tracker -- 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 1919274] Review Request: plasma-systemmonitor - An application for monitoring system resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919274 Jan Grulich changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||656997 (kde-reviews) Alias||plasma-systemmonitor Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656997 [Bug 656997] kde-related package review tracker -- 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 1919274] New: Review Request: plasma-systemmonitor - An application for monitoring system resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919274 Bug ID: 1919274 Summary: Review Request: plasma-systemmonitor - An application for monitoring system resources Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jgrul...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jgrulich.fedorapeople.org/plasma/plasma-systemmonitor.spec SRPM URL: https://jgrulich.fedorapeople.org/plasma/plasma-systemmonitor-5.20.90-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: An interface for monitoring system sensors, process information and other system resources. Fedora Account System Username: jgrulich -- 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 1919273] New: Review Request: qqc2-breeze-style - QtQuickControls2 breeze style
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919273 Bug ID: 1919273 Summary: Review Request: qqc2-breeze-style - QtQuickControls2 breeze style Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jgrul...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jgrulich.fedorapeople.org/plasma/qqc2-breeze-style.spec SRPM URL: https://jgrulich.fedorapeople.org/plasma/qqc2-breeze-style-5.20.90-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: This is a pure Qt Quick/Kirigami Qt Quick Controls style. Fedora Account System Username: jgrulich -- 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 1914195] Review Request: python-awesomeversion - Python module to deal with versions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914195
c...@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from c...@musicinmybrain.net ---
Looks great. Approved.
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", "*No copyright* Expat
License". 39 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1914195-python-
awesomeversion/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: 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:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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
[Bug 1914292] Review Request: tkrzw - Fast key-value storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914292
c...@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #13 from c...@musicinmybrain.net ---
“Perfect Edition” indeed. Thanks for all your work. Approved.
Once your dist-git repository is created, please remember to file a bug against
your package in Red Hat Bugzilla, blocking
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=F-ExcludeArch-x86, as required by
the guidelines for using ExcludeArch.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
"FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "Apache License 2.0". 15
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/ben/src/fedora/reviews/tkrzw/1914292-tkrzw/re-re-
review/1914292-tkrzw/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
Note: Test run failed
ExcludeArch required, and correctly specified. Must file RHBZ bug once
package is approved.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 92160 bytes in 23 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: 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license
[Bug 1912335] Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xwayland - Xwayland standalone package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912335 --- Comment #18 from Olivier Fourdan --- Built a new snapshot to keep up with (important) Xwayland changes: Spec URL: https://ofourdan.fedorapeople.org/xorg-x11-server-Xwayland/xorg-x11-server-Xwayland.spec SRPM URL: https://ofourdan.fedorapeople.org/xorg-x11-server-Xwayland/xorg-x11-server-Xwayland-1.20.99.1-0.1.20210122git9716c41.fc34.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 1918078] Review Request: luit - Locale and ISO 2022 support for Unicode terminals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1918078
Artur Frenszek-Iwicki changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fed...@svgames.pl
--- Comment #1 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki ---
>Source0:https://invisible-island.net/datafiles/release/luit.tar.gz
This will always point to the latest release, which makes reproducing builds
harder.
How about using "ftp://ftp.invisible-island.net/luit/luit-%{version}.tgz;
instead?
>%install
>rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Don't remove the buildroot at start of %install.
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 1907014] Review Request: rust-cty - Type aliases to C types like c_int for use with bindgen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907014 Igor Raits changed: What|Removed |Added CC||igor.ra...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Igor Raits --- The %license is missing, otherwise looks good. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1912335] Review Request: xorg-x11-server-Xwayland - Xwayland standalone package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1912335 --- Comment #17 from Olivier Fourdan --- Anything else missing? -- 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 1919118] New: Review Request: python-snaptime - Transforming timestamps simply
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919118 Bug ID: 1919118 Summary: Review Request: python-snaptime - Transforming timestamps simply Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: iz...@iztok-jr-fister.eu QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/snaptime-rpm/blob/main/python-snaptime.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/snaptime-rpm/raw/main/python-snaptime-0.2.4-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: The snaptime package is about transforming timestamps simply. Fedora Account System Username: iztokf -- 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
