[Bug 1314851] Review Request: novaclient-os-diskconfig - Disk Config extension for python-novaclient
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1314851 Christos Triantafyllidis changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1314851] Review Request: novaclient-os-diskconfig - Disk Config extension for python-novaclient
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Christos Triantafyllidis has canceled Package Review 's request for Christos Triantafyllidis 's needinfo: Bug 1314851: Review Request: novaclient-os-diskconfig - Disk Config extension for python-novaclient https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1314851 ___ 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 1314851] Review Request: novaclient-os-diskconfig - Disk Config extension for python-novaclient
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1314851 Christos Triantafyllidis changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(christos.triantaf | |ylli...@gmail.com) | Assignee|christos.triantafyllidis@gm |nob...@fedoraproject.org |ail.com | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1981115] Review Request: rust-signature - Traits for cryptographic signature algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981115 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|peter...@redhat.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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 1982370] Review Request: fedora-review-plugin-java - Java plugin for FedoraReview
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982370 Sergio Basto changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|POST|CLOSED Last Closed||2021-08-02 01:23:10 --- Comment #10 from Sergio Basto --- built in rawhide, thank you , closing this review request -- 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 1833407] Review Request: python-unittest-mixins - A set of mixin classes and other helpers for unittest test case classes.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1833407 Dan Radez changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(mail@fabian-affol ||ter.ch) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1833407] Review Request: python-unittest-mixins - A set of mixin classes and other helpers for unittest test case classes.
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Dan Radez has canceled Package Review 's request for Fabian Affolter 's needinfo: Bug 1833407: Review Request: python-unittest-mixins - A set of mixin classes and other helpers for unittest test case classes. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1833407 ___ 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 1833407] Review Request: python-unittest-mixins - A set of mixin classes and other helpers for unittest test case classes.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1833407 Dan Radez changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(mail@fabian-affol | |ter.ch) | -- 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 1986613] Review Request: iotools - Set of command line tools to access hardware device registers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1986613
Troy Curtis changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(dcava...@fb.com)
--- Comment #2 from Troy Curtis ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- I agree with the choice of not using the `make install` target of upstream,
it looks like it adds a lot of very generically named symlinks to sbin.
However, there should probably be a comment in the %install section detailing
why the make install target isn't used.
- I presume you feel that creating a man-page for this executable is out of
scope for your packaging efforts?
- Should we add a note why this particular fork was chosen as the upstream? I
ask only since it seems to not be the "original" repo.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package 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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 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]: 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 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.
I did a simple test just using cpu_list subcommand
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
[Bug 1986613] Review Request: iotools - Set of command line tools to access hardware device registers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1986613 Troy Curtis changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@troycurtisjr.com CC||t...@troycurtisjr.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- 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 1986844] Review Request: ircii - Popular Unix Irc client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1986844
Troy Curtis changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
CC||t...@troycurtisjr.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #4 from Troy Curtis ---
Also note that once the package is approved, you'll need to seek sponsorship
into the package group. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd=PackageMaintainers/Join#Get_Sponsored
for more details.
Gustavo has some great suggestions. Additionally, you should prefer https over
http, so Source0 should be https://ircii.warped.com/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1987045] Review Request: dump1090 - Simple Mode S decoder specifically designed for RTLSDR devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1987045 Troy Curtis changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(stu...@gathman.or ||g) --- Comment #4 from Troy Curtis --- Great pointers Ben! In addition to Ben's feedback, I had a few additional suggestions and questions. I'll save posting fedora-review output until the next round since my output is similar to Ben's. Questions: - Should the `*` be removed from the license text? - Should the slightly more restrictive BSD 3-clause found in anet.h be used instead? Small issues: - the html page does not need execute perms, suggest 644 instead. - Remove the commented lines for Requires & configure - Can you do a scratch build so we can see how this package behaves on other archs? I followed the directions in the README and was able to get between 6-8 tracks using my little whip antenna almost immediately, so it seems to works as described! If you do decide to create and maintain the manpage, it might be nice to put the few quick examples outlined in the README there. I found them to be really helpful. Personal opinion on the patch. The patch is arguably specific to this package, so I would be surprised if it makes sense to upstream. Still there should be a comment on the patch explaining that. -- 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 1988840] Review Request: BoostHttpServer - Improvements on top of the Boost Asio HTTP server example
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988840 Davide Cavalca changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1988781 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988781 [Bug 1988781] Review Request: CTML - C++ HTML document constructor only depending on the standard library -- 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 1988781] Review Request: CTML - C++ HTML document constructor only depending on the standard library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988781 Davide Cavalca changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Blocks||1988840 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988840 [Bug 1988840] Review Request: BoostHttpServer - Improvements on top of the Boost Asio HTTP server example -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1988840] New: Review Request: BoostHttpServer - Improvements on top of the Boost Asio HTTP server example
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988840 Bug ID: 1988840 Summary: Review Request: BoostHttpServer - Improvements on top of the Boost Asio HTTP server example Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dcava...@fb.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/BoostHttpServer/BoostHttpServer.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/BoostHttpServer/BoostHttpServer-0-1.20210801git4bc3623.fc35.src.rpm Description: This is a simple C++ embeddable web server build from the Boost.Asio multithreaded HTTP 1.0 Server Example. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca -- 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 1988832] Review Request: python-pytest-bdd - BDD library for the py.test runner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988832 Ben Beasley changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On|1988758 | Blocks||1988758 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988758 [Bug 1988758] jrnl-2.8.2 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1988832] Review Request: python-pytest-bdd - BDD library for the py.test runner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988832 Ben Beasley changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1988758 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988758 [Bug 1988758] jrnl-2.8.2 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1988832] Review Request: python-pytest-bdd - BDD library for the py.test runner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988832 Ben Beasley changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||Trivial Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1988832] New: Review Request: python-pytest-bdd - BDD library for the py.test runner
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988832 Bug ID: 1988832 Summary: Review Request: python-pytest-bdd - BDD library for the py.test runner 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://music.fedorapeople.org/python-pytest-bdd.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/python-pytest-bdd-4.1.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: pytest-bdd implements a subset of the Gherkin language to enable automating project requirements testing and to facilitate behavioral driven development. Unlike many other BDD tools, it does not require a separate runner and benefits from the power and flexibility of pytest. It enables unifying unit and functional tests, reduces the burden of continuous integration server configuration and allows the reuse of test setups. Pytest fixtures written for unit tests can be reused for setup and actions mentioned in feature steps with dependency injection. This allows a true BDD just-enough specification of the requirements without maintaining any context object containing the side effects of Gherkin imperative declarations. Fedora Account System Username: music Koji scratch builds: F35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73081536 F34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73081709 F33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73081777 This is a new build dependency for “jrnl”. Notes on rpmlint output: > python-pytest-bdd-doc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/python-pytest-bdd-doc/html/objects.inv > python-pytest-bdd-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 > /usr/share/doc/python-pytest-bdd-doc/html/objects.inv This is not really a text file, but there’s enough text in it that rpmlint incorrectly detects it as one. > python-pytest-bdd.src:99: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog This is because rpmlint does not yet understand rpmautospec. -- 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 1987045] Review Request: dump1090 - Simple Mode S decoder specifically designed for RTLSDR devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1987045
Ben Beasley changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||c...@musicinmybrain.net
--- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley ---
I see Troy has already taken the review, so please consider this supplemental
feedback.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= Issues =
- The applicable compiler flags are only partially honored. The correct CFLAGS
are applied, but the correct LDFLAGS are not. Consider replacing:
%make_build CC=gcc CFLAGS="${CFLAGS:-%optflags}"
with:
%set_build_flags
%make_build
- The patch should be explained and preferably linked to an upstream bug report
or PR.
- Please consider asking upstream to add a separate license file so you don’t
have to make one with sed.
- A man page would be great
(https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages),
although the package can be approved without one.
If you’re willing to maintain it downstream, I can write one in groff_man(7)
format based on the --help output, either now or as a PR to the package once
it is approved.
= Notes (no change required) =
- You could simplify referencing source quite a bit with the “forge” macros;
see
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_commit_example.
These can handle adding the snapshot info to the release and generating the
correct source URL and extraction directory for you.
%global forgeurl https://github.com/antirez/%{name}
%global commit de61bd564f1aa929bae414a70e421acd0b81789a
Name: dump1090
Version:0
%forgemeta
Release:1
Summary:Simple Mode S decoder specifically designed for RTLSDR
devices
License:BSD
URL:%{forgeurl}
Source0:%{forgesource}
…
%prep
%forgeautosetup
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (3 clause)". 6
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/reviewer/1987045-dump1090/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: %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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
(except as noted)
[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
[Bug 1987045] Review Request: dump1090 - Simple Mode S decoder specifically designed for RTLSDR devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1987045 Troy Curtis changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@troycurtisjr.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Troy Curtis --- Nevermind, I see now that despite the comment in the README that I saw, the chosen repo has a lot more recent activity so it makes perfect sense what this one was chosen. I'll start 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1967805] Review Request: nodejs-web-ext - This is a command line tool to help build, run, and test WebExtensions.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967805 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||domi...@greysector.net --- Comment #4 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski --- Alternatively, the src.rpm could be named nodejs-web-ext, but the binary package it produces could be named web-ext. Where do you see the requirement of coffee-script? I downloaded web-ext 6.2.0 tarball and there are no references to coffee-script. Please update to 6.2.0, too. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1988800] Review Request: ghc-gi-harfbuzz - HarfBuzz bindings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988800 --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen --- This unbundles the library from ghc-gi-pango, which seems needed to get it to build for LTS 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1985357] Review Request: python-scikit-uplift - uplift modeling in scikit-learn style in python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1985357 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- LGTM, package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1939390] Review Request: python-doublex - Python test doubles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939390 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1987871 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1987871 [Bug 1987871] python-getkey: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f35 -- 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 1988800] New: Review Request: ghc-gi-harfbuzz - HarfBuzz bindings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988800 Bug ID: 1988800 Summary: Review Request: ghc-gi-harfbuzz - HarfBuzz bindings Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: peter...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-gi-harfbuzz/ghc-gi-harfbuzz.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-gi-harfbuzz/ghc-gi-harfbuzz-0.0.3-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Bindings for HarfBuzz, autogenerated by haskell-gi. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73067318 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ 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 1985357] Review Request: python-scikit-uplift - uplift modeling in scikit-learn style in python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1985357 --- Comment #2 from Iztok Fister Jr. --- Thank you Robert-Andre for your comments/suggestions and corrections. New files are online. SRPMS: https://github.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-scikit-uplift/raw/main/python-scikit-uplift-0.3.2-1.fc33.src.rpm SPEC: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/firefly-cpp/rpm-scikit-uplift/main/python-scikit-uplift.spec -- 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 1981115] Review Request: rust-signature - Traits for cryptographic signature algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981115 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |rust-signature - Traits for |rust-signature - Traits for |cryptographic signature |cryptographic signature |algorithms (e.g |algorithms -- 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
