[Bug 1856005] Review Request: dmtcp - Checkpoint/Restart functionality for Linux processes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005 --- Comment #19 from Paul Grosu --- Hi Orion, The failure of DMTCP to compile is apparently due to a change to /usr/include in rawhide. They used to define the macro _STAT_VER in /usr/include/bits/stat.h, and upstream glibc certainly defines it. But rawhide removed that macro. We'll soon provide a new version of DMTCP, in which we check if the macro is provided by stat.h, and if not, we'll define it ourselves. This seems to have caused problems with other Fedora packages that also use lxstat, etc. But the fix will be simple. We'll test it and package the updated DMTCP shortly. Thank you, Paul and Gene -- 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 1907048] Review Request: ghc-http-query - Simple http queries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907048 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-19a8d719d2 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-2021-19a8d719d2 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-19a8d719d2 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 1907048] Review Request: ghc-http-query - Simple http queries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907048 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-bb70eb6b05 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-bb70eb6b05 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-bb70eb6b05 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 1727506] Review Request: python-spikeextractors - Python module for extracting recorded and spike sorted extracellular data from different file types and formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1727506 --- Comment #7 from Andy Mender --- > Andy, are you perhaps interested in packaging this up? We'd like it included > in the NeuroFedora SIG's packages. So I'll be happy to review it if you can > submit a new package review. Sure thing! This has been a bit of a dead review to begin with. I took it, because I didn't want it to disappear. I'll submit a new one and mark this one as FE-DEADREVIEW when I have a little more time. -- 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 1927011] New: Review Request: rust-sev - Library for AMD SEV
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927011 Bug ID: 1927011 Summary: Review Request: rust-sev - Library for AMD SEV Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: cku...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ckuehl/rust-sev/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01955939-rust-sev/rust-sev.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ckuehl/rust-sev/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01955939-rust-sev/rust-sev-0.1.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Library for AMD SEV Fedora Account System Username: ckuehl This is a library for developing against the AMD Secure Encrypted Virtualization feature found in EPYC processors. I am one of the upstream maintainers for this project. Successful build on the COPR frontend here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ckuehl/rust-sev/build/1955939/ -- 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 1924918] Review Request: reprotest: Build packages and check them for reproducibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1924918 --- Comment #7 from frederic.pier...@qubes-os.org --- I've updated also sources verification signature. Spec is updated and the github repository and latest working build here: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fepitre/fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01955981-reprotest/. For your information %check section would be added soon once my merge request https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/reprotest/-/merge_requests/13/diffs will be merged. It allows to handle upstream tests nicely under Fedora. I plan to add Fedora specific tests too on upstream. -- 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 1921853] Review Request: rust-derive-new - Derive simple constructor functions for structs and enums
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921853 --- Comment #8 from Sohan Kunkerkar --- > Please fix the Summary and %description tags before importing and building > the package. My bad, it's fixed in the subsequent push. -- 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 1925759] Review Request: disorderfs - FUSE filesystem that introduces non-determinism
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925759
--- Comment #2 from frederic.pier...@qubes-os.org ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1)
> > %{_datadir}/man/man1/disorderfs.1.gz
> → %{_datadir}/man/man1/disorderfs.1*
> (We might want to change the default compression alg at some point.)
Fixed.
> Maybe update to 0.5.11?
I've updated the version.
> Are the tags under https://reproducible-builds.org/_lfs/releases/disorderfs/
> reliable?
> If yes, then we'd want to have signature verification as described in
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> #_source_file_verification
Yes they are, notably I've reviewed it with upstream and also ask them to
publish the keyring. I've updated the code accordingly the guidelines. I've
added the keyring hash into "sources" file too. Should I add it into the git
repo too?
> > %doc README
> The README has no useful information.
> Maybe do '%doc NEWS' instead?
NEWS is older and looks like some kind of changelog. I propose you to help
upstream in updating the current README for which they refer to
https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/disorderfs/-/blob/master/disorderfs.1.txt
for information but few useful info can be extracted to the README. What do you
think?
--
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 1921853] Review Request: rust-derive-new - Derive simple constructor functions for structs and enums
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921853 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Fabio Valentini --- Uhm ... What did you do to Summary and description? I said remove the two `s, not to remove everything between them :) The text itself was fine, just the markup makes no sense in RPM tags ... If you *want* to change the Summary text, do something like this to make it make sense: Summary:Derive simple constructor functions for structs and enums The %description can stay unmodified from the rust2rpm generated .spec. Other than that: package generated with rust2rpm, simplifying the review: - latest version from crates.io is packaged - License matches upstream specification and shipped as %license - follows Packaging and Rust Packaging Guidelines - builds and installs successfully on rawhide Please fix the Summary and %description tags before importing and building the 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 1925758] Review Request: python-rstr - Generate random strings in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925758 --- Comment #2 from frederic.pier...@qubes-os.org --- Thank you again for your review and now your approval for this one. I've changed URL to baseurl https://files.pythonhosted.org where the original URL redirects to. -- 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 1150105] Review Request: python-pynn - Simulator-independent specification of neuronal network models
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150105 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Jerry James --- All of the MUST issues have been addressed (and the others are in process of being fixed), so this package is 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 1150105] Review Request: python-pynn - Simulator-independent specification of neuronal network models
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150105 --- Comment #12 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Thanks for the review Jerry. Apologies for the delay. Here are the updated Spec/SRPM files: Spec: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-pynn/python-pynn.spec SRPM: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-pynn/python-pynn-0.9.6-1.fc33.src.rpm Changelog: * Tue Feb 09 2021 Ankur Sinha - 0.9.6-1 - Remove duplicate neuron-devel BR - Add patch to correct python operator usage - Use arch dependent and version specific requirement on base package - Add comment about NEURON files - Filter out private libnrnmech from provides The rpath bit came from the NEURON package. I've fixed that and pushed updates too. So if you test this one for F32/F33, you'll have to ensure that the updates-testing repo is enabled for the build. I've submitted a PR for the python issue, which was already accepted: https://github.com/NeuralEnsemble/PyNN/pull/706 I've also filed a ticket for the compilation warnings: https://github.com/NeuralEnsemble/PyNN/issues/707 The x86_64 folder is NEURON specific. Mod files that are to be accessible in NEURON are compiled together to create a libnrnmech.so library, which is loaded into NEURON by a script called "special" (that calls `nrniv -dll $ARCH/.libs/libnrnmech.so`). And then, `.libs/libnrnmech.so` is a sym link to `../../$ARCH/libnrnmech.so`. I guess they could just use the libnrnmech.so file instead of the symlink, but this is how it is---probably because of some historical reasons. It also creates the empty x86_64 directory as you noticed: really not sure what that is about but I see it everywhere we compile mod files. I'll double check with colleagues that are running NEURON on other platforms to see if this one is necessary and also confirm with upstream. Cheers, Ankur -- 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 1921853] Review Request: rust-derive-new - Derive simple constructor functions for structs and enums
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921853 --- Comment #6 from Sohan Kunkerkar --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #5) > A LICENSE file is now in the upstream crate, but it's still not added in the > package. > > Add "%license LICENSE" to the %files list for the -devel subpackage. > > > Also please remove the markdown markup (the two `) from the Summary tag. Thanks for the review! Fixed. Could you take another look? -- 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 1921853] Review Request: rust-derive-new - Derive simple constructor functions for structs and enums
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921853 --- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini --- A LICENSE file is now in the upstream crate, but it's still not added in the package. Add "%license LICENSE" to the %files list for the -devel subpackage. Also please remove the markdown markup (the two `) from the Summary tag. -- 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 1925891] Review Request: ghc-pretty-terminal - Styling and coloring terminal output with ANSI escape sequences
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925891 --- Comment #9 from Jens Petersen --- Thank you for the review, Parag https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32067 -- 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 1925891] Review Request: ghc-pretty-terminal - Styling and coloring terminal output with ANSI escape sequences
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925891 --- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen --- Thanks I opened bug 1926757 to track the doc dirs ownership issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1925891] Review Request: ghc-pretty-terminal - Styling and coloring terminal output with ANSI escape sequences
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925891 Parag AN(पराग) changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Parag AN(पराग) --- Thanks for the update. I ran the fedora-review tool on this update. checksum issue is fixed now. This package is 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 1925891] Review Request: ghc-pretty-terminal - Styling and coloring terminal output with ANSI escape sequences
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925891 --- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen --- https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61656728 -- 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 1925891] Review Request: ghc-pretty-terminal - Styling and coloring terminal output with ANSI escape sequences
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925891 --- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen --- Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-pretty-terminal/ghc-pretty-terminal.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-pretty-terminal/ghc-pretty-terminal-0.1.0.0-2.fc33.src.rpm - convert revised .cabal file to unix format in setup (#1925891) - remove the example executable -- 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 1925891] Review Request: ghc-pretty-terminal - Styling and coloring terminal output with ANSI escape sequences
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925891
--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen ---
Thanks for looking over the package, Parag
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #3)
> Please fix the source checksum issue. Also I am confused why so many
> packages doc ownership output.
Okay I realised the checksum of pretty-terminal.cabal is wrong because
cabal-rpm converts it to
unix format after downloading (for some reason all revised .cabal files on
Hackage are in DOS format),
but I can avoid this issue by converting them in %setup instead.
The doc dirs ownership issue is due to transitional packaging introduced with
the -doc subpackages,
a couple of releases ago. Currently all library packages own
/usr/share/doc/ghc{,/html{,/libraries}}
(and so does ghc-compiler currently), but I think the right step forward
is to add ghc-filesystem to ghc-rpm-macros and add Requires for that.
I want to do that for F35 and maybe backport it to F34.
--
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 1925891] Review Request: ghc-pretty-terminal - Styling and coloring terminal output with ANSI escape sequences
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925891
--- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) ---
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++/
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/test/1925891-ghc-
pretty-terminal/diff.txt
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "[generated file]". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/test/1925891-ghc-pretty-
terminal/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/doc/ghc(ghc-
filepath-bytestring-doc, ghc-HsYAML-doc,
ghc-url-doc, ghc-deepseq-doc)
[ ]: %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 10240 bytes in 3 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 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]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not
[Bug 1926700] Review Request: python-BatAlgorithm - Implementation of Bat Algorithm in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1926700 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||sanjay.an...@gmail.com Blocks||1276941 (fedora-neuro) Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sanjay.an...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276941 [Bug 1276941] Fedora NeuroImaging and NeuroScience tracking bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1926700] New: Review Request: python-BatAlgorithm - Implementation of Bat Algorithm in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1926700 Bug ID: 1926700 Summary: Review Request: python-BatAlgorithm - Implementation of Bat Algorithm in Python 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://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-bat/main/python-BatAlgorithm.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-bat/raw/main/python-BatAlgorithm-0.3.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Implementation of Bat Algorithm in Python 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
[Bug 1926697] Review Request: asmtools - An OpenSource project to develop tools for the production of proper and improper Java '.class' files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1926697 Jaya changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jva...@redhat.com -- 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 1926697] New: Review Request: asmtools - An OpenSource project to develop tools for the production of proper and improper Java '.class' files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1926697 Bug ID: 1926697 Summary: Review Request: asmtools - An OpenSource project to develop tools for the production of proper and improper Java '.class' files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jhutt...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jhuttana.fedorapeople.org/asmtools.spec SRPM URL: https://jhuttana.fedorapeople.org/asmtools-7.0.b10.pre.0.1-pre.0.1.src.rpm Description: AsmTools OpenSource project which helps to develop tools for the production of proper and improper Java '.class' files. Also, aids a community of Java .class file production for various testing and other OpenJDK development applications. AsmTools consist of a set of (Java class file) assembler/disassemblers: Jasm/Jdis: an assembler language that provides a Java-like declaration of member signatures, while providing Java VM specification compliant mnemonics for byte-code instructions. JCod/JDec: an assembler language that provides byte-code containers of class-file constructs. AsmTools are developed to support the latest class file formats, in lock-step with JDK development. Fedora Account System Username:jhuttana -- 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 1925758] Review Request: python-rstr - Generate random strings in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925758 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- > http://bitbucket.org/leapfrogdevelopment/rstr/overview No https? Returns 404. + package name is OK + license is acceptable for Fedora (BSD) + license is specified correctly + builds and installs OK + R/BR/P look OK + fedora-review finds no issues rpmlint: python3-rstr.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://bitbucket.org/leapfrogdevelopment/rstr/overview HTTP Error 404: Not Found python3-rstr.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Package is 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 1925759] Review Request: disorderfs - FUSE filesystem that introduces non-determinism
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925759
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
> %{_datadir}/man/man1/disorderfs.1.gz
→ %{_datadir}/man/man1/disorderfs.1*
(We might want to change the default compression alg at some point.)
Maybe update to 0.5.11?
Are the tags under https://reproducible-builds.org/_lfs/releases/disorderfs/
reliable?
If yes, then we'd want to have signature verification as described in
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_source_file_verification
> %doc README
The README has no useful information.
Maybe do '%doc NEWS' instead?
+ package name is OK
+ latest version (almost ;))
+ license is acceptable for Fedora (GPLv3+)
+ license is specified correctly
+ builds fine in mock
+ B/R/PR seem to be specified correctly
+ fedora-review and rpmlint find no issues
--
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
