[Bug 1790149] Review Request: ocaml-markup - Error-recovering streaming HTML5 and XML parsers for OCaml

2020-01-21 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1790149

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2020-01-22 02:26:43



--- Comment #3 from Jerry James  ---
Built in Rawhide.

-- 
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 1790149] Review Request: ocaml-markup - Error-recovering streaming HTML5 and XML parsers for OCaml

2020-01-21 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1790149
Bug 1790149 depends on bug 1790146, which changed state.

Bug 1790146 Summary: Review Request: ocaml-uutf - Non-blocking streaming 
Unicode codec for OCaml
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1790146

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE



-- 
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 1790149] Review Request: ocaml-markup - Error-recovering streaming HTML5 and XML parsers for OCaml

2020-01-21 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1790149
Bug 1790149 depends on bug 1789211, which changed state.

Bug 1789211 Summary: Review Request: ocaml-bisect-ppx - Code coverage for OCaml 
and Reason
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1789211

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE



-- 
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 1790149] Review Request: ocaml-markup - Error-recovering streaming HTML5 and XML parsers for OCaml

2020-01-13 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1790149



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ocaml-markup

-- 
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 1790149] Review Request: ocaml-markup - Error-recovering streaming HTML5 and XML parsers for OCaml

2020-01-12 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1790149

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Package approved.



Package Review
==

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


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat
 License". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ocaml-markup/review-ocaml-
 markup/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 296960 bytes in 28 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ocaml-
 markup-lwt-devel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
 publishes signatures.
 Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for 

[Bug 1790149] Review Request: ocaml-markup - Error-recovering streaming HTML5 and XML parsers for OCaml

2020-01-11 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1790149

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1790152




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1790152
[Bug 1790152] Review Request: ocaml-tyxml - Build valid HTML and SVG documents
-- 
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 1790149] Review Request: ocaml-markup - Error-recovering streaming HTML5 and XML parsers for OCaml

2020-01-11 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1790149

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1789211, 1790146
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1789211
[Bug 1789211] Review Request: ocaml-bisect-ppx - Code coverage for OCaml and
Reason
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1790146
[Bug 1790146] Review Request: ocaml-uutf - Non-blocking streaming Unicode codec
for OCaml
-- 
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