[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_64/01966383-foot/foot.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01966383-foot/foot-1.6.4-0.1.fc35.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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1927580] Review Request: python-omemo-backend-signal - A backend for python-omemo offering compatibility with libsignal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1927580 --- Comment #2 from Matthieu Saulnier --- New Spec URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/python-omemo-backend-signal.spec New SRPM URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/python-omemo-backend-signal-0.2.6~beta-2.fc31.src.rpm New copr build: rawhide/f33: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fantom/poezio-omemo/build/1965987/ -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1926523] Review Request: python-omemo - Python implementation of the OMEMO Multi-End Message and Object Encryption protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1926523 --- Comment #4 from Matthieu Saulnier --- New Spec URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/python-omemo.spec New SRPM URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/python-omemo-0.11.0~beta-3.fc31.src.rpm New copr build: rawhide/f33: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fantom/poezio-omemo/build/1965985/ -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1917089] Review Request: python-doubleratchet - Python implementation of the Double Ratchet algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1917089 --- Comment #4 from Matthieu Saulnier --- I did new release with all of your remarks. I left %%description as simple as possible :) New Spec URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/python-doubleratchet.spec New SRPM URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/python-doubleratchet-0.7.0~beta-3.fc31.src.rpm New copr build: rawhide/f33: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fantom/poezio-omemo/build/1965976/ -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1916510] Review Request: python-x3dh - Python implementation of the Extended Triple Diffie-Hellman key agreement protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916510 --- Comment #4 from Matthieu Saulnier --- New Spec URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/python-x3dh.spec New SRPM URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/python-x3dh-0.5.9~beta-3.fc31.src.rpm New copr build: rawhide/f33: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fantom/poezio-omemo/build/1965942/ -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1906287] Review Request: python-xeddsa - Python implementation of the XEdDSA signature scheme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1906287 --- Comment #4 from Matthieu Saulnier --- I did new release. Unbundling has NOT been done yet. New Spec URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/python-xeddsa.spec New SRPM URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/python-xeddsa-0.6.0~beta-2.fc31.src.rpm New copr build: f33/rawhide: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fantom/poezio-omemo/build/1965925/ -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1906287] Review Request: python-xeddsa - Python implementation of the XEdDSA signature scheme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1906287 --- Comment #3 from Matthieu Saulnier --- (In reply to code from comment #2) > This contains a bundled copy of libxeddsa > (https://github.com/Syndace/libxeddsa) which must be handled in accordance > with https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling. > Indeed. Doing it now. > From README.md: > > > !!! IMPORTANT WARNING !!! > > > > This code was not written by a cryptographer and is most probably NOT > > SECURE. > > Should we even package this? Is there any other (shared)lib which do the job ? I know these libs are in alpha/beta state, and should be audited. But, I plan to import them in Fedora rawhide (which is the future f35). This way gives a lot of time to 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1928586] Review Request: snoopy - A preload library to send shell commands to syslog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1928586 Mosaab Alzoubi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1884057, 1736689 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1736689 [Bug 1736689] snoopy: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f31 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884057 [Bug 1884057] EPEL-8 Package Request: snoopy -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1928586] Review Request: snoopy - A preload library to send shell commands to syslog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1928586 Mosaab Alzoubi changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Mosaab Alzoubi --- This review just unretirement review. To pass FTBFS state. -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1928586] New: Review Request: snoopy - A preload library to send shell commands to syslog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1928586 Bug ID: 1928586 Summary: Review Request: snoopy - A preload library to send shell commands to syslog Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: moc...@hotmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/moceap/FTBFS/fedora-33-x86_64/01966340-snoopy/snoopy.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/moceap/FTBFS/fedora-33-x86_64/01966340-snoopy/snoopy-2.4.12-2.fc33.src.rpm Description: A preload library to send shell commands to syslog Fedora Account System Username: moceap -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1923015] Review Request: golang-github-badoux-checkmail - Golang package for email validation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923015 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-9df958d079 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1923015] Review Request: golang-github-badoux-checkmail - Golang package for email validation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923015 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2021-02-15 01:22:14 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-85d2a7cb5d 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1407000] Review Request: python-PuLP - LP modeler written in python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1407000 Dan Radez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Flags|needinfo?(dra...@redhat.com | |) | Last Closed||2021-02-15 00:56:01 --- Comment #24 from Dan Radez --- I don't think we need this anymore. I don't remember what it was for either :) -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1856005] Review Request: dmtcp - Checkpoint/Restart functionality for Linux processes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005
--- Comment #23 from Orion Poplawski ---
Getting very close - just 3 things to fix.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/dmtcp
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_duplicate_files
Replace:
%dir %{_pkgdocdir}
%{_pkgdocdir}
with:
%{_pkgdocdir}/
This will include %{_pkgdocdir} and everything in it and ensure that it is a
directory.
- 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/orion/1856005-dmtcp/diff.txt
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
Looks like the tarball in the srpm is different from what you get when you
download the source url. This should be fixed.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Package contains no static executables. - exception granted
[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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package 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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License GNU Lesser General
Public License, Version 3", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
Version 3", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated
file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited
License [generated file]", "Expat License [generated file]", "Apache
License 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later",
"LaTeX Project Public License", "[generated file]", "GNU Lesser
General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU General Public License,
Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete
FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 509 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/orion/1856005-dmtcp/licensecheck.txt
Please change License to and add the following comment:
# dmtcp.h is ASL-2.0
License: LGPLv3+ and ASL-2.0
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 71680 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 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
[Bug 1924918] Review Request: reprotest - Build packages and check them for reproducibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1924918 --- Comment #10 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- > > Is glibc-all-langpacks really necessary? That's a lot of data. > > What's needed in reprotest is several locales which are randomly changed for > reproducible tests and I've not found any other alternative to this big > package? Any other clue? You could do something like Requires: glibc-langpack-fr Requires: glibc-langpack-es Requires: glibc-langpack-ru Requires: glibc-langpack-kk Requires: glibc-langpack-zh Requires: glibc-langpack-en If the list of locales used by reprotest doesn't change often, that'd be OK. But if you'd have to adapt it periodically, than I don't think it makes sense. glibc-all-langpacks is 230MB, it's not end of the world. > Yes we plan to also use separate branch on upstream to maintain this spec. > Notably, for possible OpenSUSE community to use it. That'll only work as long if the two packaging standards are exactly in alignment. I think it'll be more work than it's worth with proxying the changes three ways. But that's just an opinion… -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1925758] Review Request: python-rstr - Generate random strings in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925758 frederic.pier...@qubes-os.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-02-14 16:42:38 --- Comment #4 from frederic.pier...@qubes-os.org --- Package is built in rawhide. Closing it. Thank you for all. -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1925759] Review Request: disorderfs - FUSE filesystem that introduces non-determinism
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925759 frederic.pier...@qubes-os.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2021-02-14 16:42:03 -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1925759] Review Request: disorderfs - FUSE filesystem that introduces non-determinism
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925759 --- Comment #6 from frederic.pier...@qubes-os.org --- Package is built in rawhide. Closing it. Thank you for all. -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1924918] Review Request: reprotest: Build packages and check them for reproducibility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1924918 --- Comment #9 from frederic.pier...@qubes-os.org --- (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #8) > You added the signature file, but it's not used for anything… > > Please add URL: field with a link to the upstream project home page. Yes sorry I've literally forgot it while fixing stuff. > Is glibc-all-langpacks really necessary? That's a lot of data. What's needed in reprotest is several locales which are randomly changed for reproducible tests and I've not found any other alternative to this big package? Any other clue? > + package name is OK > + license is acceptable (GPLv3+) > + license is specified correctly > + builds and installs OK > + R/P/BR look OK > > rpmlint: > rpmlint reprotest-0.7.16-3.fc34.noarch.rpm reprotest-0.7.16-3.fc34.src.rpm > reprotest.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) reproducibility -> > reprehensibility (nice one ;)) > reprotest.noarch: W: no-url-tag (see above) > reprotest.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/reprotest/lib/VirtSubproc.py > reprotest.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/reprotest/lib/adt_testbed.py > reprotest.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/reprotest/lib/adtlog.py > reprotest.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/reprotest/lib/system_interface/__init__.py > reprotest.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/reprotest/lib/system_interface/arch.py > reprotest.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/reprotest/lib/system_interface/debian.py > reprotest.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/reprotest/lib/system_interface/guix.py > reprotest.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/reprotest/virt/autopkgtest-virt-chroot > reprotest.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/reprotest/virt/autopkgtest-virt-lxc > reprotest.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/reprotest/virt/autopkgtest-virt-lxd > reprotest.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/reprotest/virt/autopkgtest-virt-null > reprotest.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/reprotest/virt/autopkgtest-virt-qemu > reprotest.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/reprotest/virt/autopkgtest-virt-schroot > reprotest.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/reprotest/virt/autopkgtest-virt-ssh > reprotest.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary reprotest > Hmm, IIRC, Debian requires a man page for every package, so there should be > one somewhere. Please also add it here if possible. > > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 14 errors, 12 warnings. > > Package is APPROVED. > > Please note that the spec file in dist-git is the canonical version. > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_spec_maintenance_and_canonicity says: > > Maintainers MUST expect that other maintainers and automated tooling will > > make changes to their packages, > > potentially without communicating prior to doing so (though communication > > is always encouraged). If some > > maintainers are also attempting to keep copies of a spec in an outside > > repository, they MUST be prepared > > to merge changes made to the spec in Fedora’s repository, and MUST NOT > > overwrite those changes with a > > copy from an external repository > > i.e. if you want to keep the spec file in the upstream project, that is OK, > but occasionally you'll need > to move stuff manually to the version in upstream. Yes we plan to also use separate branch on upstream to maintain this spec. Notably, for possible OpenSUSE community to use it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1856005] Review Request: dmtcp - Checkpoint/Restart functionality for Linux processes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856005 --- Comment #22 from Paul Grosu --- Hi Orion, Spec URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/~pgrosu/fedora/rawhide/dmtcp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/~pgrosu/fedora/rawhide/dmtcp-2.6.1~rc1-0.1.fc35.src.rpm We're providing a new DMTCP package in which we comment out the offending tests from the DMTCP test suite. The DMTCP test suite has a timeout for when a test takes too long. But the test machines at Fedora are sometimes loaded more heavily. This was causing the tests to exceed the timeout. We have a new SRPM here, in which we have commented out the tests for opemp-2 and nocheckpoint. Under a reasonable load, the Fedora test machines should complete the remaining tests within the timeout. Best, - 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1925812] Review Request: python-tkrzw - python binding for tkrzw key-value library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925812
c...@musicinmybrain.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from c...@musicinmybrain.net ---
Thanks! Approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
Covered by unconventional pkgconfig(python3).
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[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.
This is the compiled Python module directly under the %python3_sitearch
directory, which is exactly where it belongs. There is no problem.
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",
"Apache License 2.0". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/reviewer/1925812-python-tkrzw/re-
review/1925812-python-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.
[-]: 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.
ExcludeArch correctly justified. Remember to file an RHBZ issue blocking
F-ExcludeArch-x86 for this package, separate from and blocked by the one
for tkrzw, once this package is approved.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no
[Bug 1925812] Review Request: python-tkrzw - python binding for tkrzw key-value library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925812 Eugene A. Pivnev changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(ti.eugene@gmail.c | |om) | --- Comment #2 from Eugene A. Pivnev --- (In reply to code from comment #1) > Package Review > == Thank you for great advises. I leave pkgconfig() because of possible renaming packages from distro to distro. Spec URL: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/python-tkrzw/python-tkrzw.spec SRPM URL: https://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/python-tkrzw/python-tkrzw-0.1.4-2.fc33.src.rpm Koji builds: F32: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61913452 F33: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61913948 F34: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61914151 F35: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61915911 EPEL8: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61912916 -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1407000] Review Request: python-PuLP - LP modeler written in python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1407000 Alan Pevec (Fedora) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #23 from Alan Pevec (Fedora) --- FWIW pulpproject.org is since their 3.0.0 release publishing into non-conflicting namespaces in pypi: https://pypi.org/user/pulp/ It was also retired in Fedora https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pulp/c/740d2a375360c4858ad601155f45584c8ce71fb3 -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1407000] Review Request: python-PuLP - LP modeler written in python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1407000 Alan Pevec (Fedora) changed: What|Removed |Added 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1407000] Review Request: python-PuLP - LP modeler written in python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1407000 Alan Pevec (Fedora) changed: What|Removed |Added CC|ape...@gmail.com, | |ape...@redhat.com, | |hgue...@redhat.com, | |jp...@redhat.com, | |karlthe...@gmail.com| Assignee|ape...@gmail.com|nob...@fedoraproject.org Flags|needinfo?(ape...@gmail.com) |needinfo?(dra...@redhat.com ||) --- Comment #22 from Alan Pevec (Fedora) --- Dan, are you still interested to add this package to Fedora? Links to proposed spec at radez.fedorapeople.org are now 404. Honestly, I forgot what was this dependency for :) -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
needinfo canceled: [Bug 1407000] Review Request: python-PuLP - LP modeler written in python
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Alan Pevec (Fedora) has canceled Package Review 's request for Alan Pevec (Fedora) 's needinfo: Bug 1407000: Review Request: python-PuLP - LP modeler written in python https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1407000 --- Comment #22 from Alan Pevec (Fedora) --- Dan, are you still interested to add this package to Fedora? Links to proposed spec at radez.fedorapeople.org are now 404. Honestly, I forgot what was this dependency for :) ___ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1880701] Review Request: python-hangups - Python instant messaging client for Hangouts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880701 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(mail@fabian-affol ||ter.ch) --- Comment #3 from Andy Mender --- Any updates on this ticket perhaps? :) -- 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1885503] Review Request: python-habapp - Automation with MQTT and/or openHAB
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885503 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(mail@fabian-affol ||ter.ch) ||needinfo?(susi.lehtola@iki. ||fi) --- Comment #3 from Andy Mender --- Hello Fabian and Susi, any updates on 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1903686] Review Request: xmlezout - set of packages intended to aid the creation of XML-formatted output from within Ada programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1903686 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(pzhu...@redhat.co ||m) --- Comment #5 from Andy Mender --- Hello Pavel, any updates on 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
