[Bug 1366741] Review Request: xcb-util-xrm - XCB utility functions for the X resource manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366741

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-08-29 14:51:39



-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243



--- Comment #24 from gil cattaneo  ---
Created attachment 1195455
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1195455=edit
fix pom macros

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Attachment|0   |1
#1195457 is||
   obsolete||



--- Comment #27 from gil cattaneo  ---
Created attachment 1195459
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1195459=edit
fix pom macros

fix java BR list

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 977116] Review Request: pgmodeler - PostgreSQL Database Modeler

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977116



--- Comment #44 from Pavel Alexeev  ---
Igor ping?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Attachment|0   |1
#1195455 is||
   obsolete||



--- Comment #26 from gil cattaneo  ---
Created attachment 1195457
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1195457=edit
fix pom macros

corrected Release field

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366277] python-gfm - Github-Flavored Markdown for Python-Markdown

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366277



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-gfm-0.1.3-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If
problems still persist, 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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1082825] Review Request: mozilla-lightbeam - An add-on for visualizing HTTP requests between websites in real time

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082825



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
mozilla-lightbeam-1.3.1-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable
repository. If problems still persist, 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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366741] Review Request: xcb-util-xrm - XCB utility functions for the X resource manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366741



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
xcb-util-xrm-1.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If
problems still persist, 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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1327071] Review Request: libusnic_verbs - No-op libibverbs driver for the Cisco usNIC device

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327071



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
libusnic_verbs-2.0.2-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository.
If problems still persist, 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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1099033] Review Request: adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts - A set of serif OpenType fonts designed to complement Source Sans Pro

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1099033



--- Comment #5 from Michael Kuhn  ---
Are you still interested in reviewing the package? Please give some feedback so
I can find another reviewer if necessary. Thanks!

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1358215] Review Request: direnv - shell environment variable manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358215

Dusty Mabe  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dustym...@redhat.com



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1371296] New: Review Request: zsh-syntax-highlighting - Fish shell like syntax highlighting for Zsh

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371296

Bug ID: 1371296
   Summary: Review Request: zsh-syntax-highlighting - Fish shell
like syntax highlighting for Zsh
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: sur...@ikkoku.de
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://ikkoku.de/~suraia/zsh-syntax-highlighting/zsh-syntax-highlighting.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ikkoku.de/~suraia/zsh-syntax-highlighting/zsh-syntax-highlighting-0.4.1-1.fc24.src.rpm

Description:
This package provides syntax highlighting for the shell zsh. It enables
highlighting of commands whilst they are typed at a zsh prompt into an
interactive terminal. This helps in reviewing commands before running them,
particularly in catching syntax errors.

Fedora Account System Username: suraia

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1121425] Review Request: lazygal - A static web gallery generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121425

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
lazygal-0.8.8-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f3422e6d4c

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243



--- Comment #42 from Michal Karm Babacek  ---
Ad other branches (f24, f25):
> Some dependencies if you update would create a lot of compatibility problems 
> ...
> not to mention the jackson libraries (2.7.x) ...

I'll test before I move, but there is nothing to worry about, the dependency on
jboss-logging is safe and that's about it...  The Wildfly-mod_cluster subsystem
code resides in Wildfly code repo itself.


Ad your latest specfile:
THX Gil.
I added:

> +BuildRequires: mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-release-plugin)

to attachment 1195551, because the build needs maven-release-plugin now.

Pushing new Rawhide...

 * 1.3.3-4
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/mod_cluster.git/commit/?id=6bf9d20ffd40b625762637ffeb43a1570f3a7785
 * 1.3.3-5
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/mod_cluster.git/commit/?id=0e223e9831a01f92de47be11d8a652bbe87f6e07
 * 1.3.3-6
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/mod_cluster.git/commit/?id=7e9002c816d93eb620f3aa478f8b2f81d25165c7

 * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15431737

I go off-line to sleep; thank you very much for this back and forth.

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1369224] Review Request: jackson-modules-base - Jackson modules: Base

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369224

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1371325




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371325
[Bug 1371325] jackson-module-afterburner: FTBFS 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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1369224] Review Request: jackson-modules-base - Jackson modules: Base

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369224

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1371326




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371326
[Bug 1371326] jackson-module-mrbean: FTBFS 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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243



--- Comment #43 from gil cattaneo  ---
ops forgotten to increase 
* Mon Aug 30 2016 X 1.3.3-5
mow is Release:   6%{?dist}

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Attachment|0   |1
#1195543 is||
   obsolete||



--- Comment #37 from gil cattaneo  ---
Created attachment 1195546
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1195546=edit
remove pom macro on unavailable mod_cluster-container-catalina-spi

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243



--- Comment #39 from Michal Karm Babacek  ---
No problem, I just thought it was supposed to be 1 because it is the first
build of mod_cluster 1.3.3. I used 4 (actually 5) as you suggested though.

So far, I pushed to rawhide:

 * 1.3.3-4
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/mod_cluster.git/commit/?id=6bf9d20ffd40b625762637ffeb43a1570f3a7785
 * 1.3.3-5
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/mod_cluster.git/commit/?id=0e223e9831a01f92de47be11d8a652bbe87f6e07
 * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15431508

and I tested upgrade from 1.2.6 on f24. Wildfly would need additional testing
as soon as it's updated, because I used Wildfly from zip and just replaced
mod_cluster libs so as to make sure mod_cluster rpm provides all necessary
classes.

Any reason not to carry on with f25 and f24? There is none from the mod_cluster
project view, nobody could use mod_cluster in Fedora these days in any
production env because it actually doesn't work (numerous bugs, performance
issues, CVEs...).

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1356657] Review Request: lxqt-wallet - Create a kwallet like functionality for LXQt

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356657

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|ERRATA  |---
   Keywords||Reopened



--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
lxqt-wallet-3.0.0-1.el7, zulucrypt-5.0.0-3.20160802git064e9db.el7 has been
pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist,
please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-f08257b92c

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1356739] Review Request: zulucrypt - Qt GUI front end to cryptsetup

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356739

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|ERRATA  |---
   Keywords||Reopened



--- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System  ---
lxqt-wallet-3.0.0-1.el7, zulucrypt-5.0.0-3.20160802git064e9db.el7 has been
pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist,
please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-f08257b92c

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Attachment|0   |1
#1195546 is||
   obsolete||



--- Comment #41 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Michal Karm Babacek from comment #39)
> No problem, I just thought it was supposed to be 1 because it is the first
> build of mod_cluster 1.3.3. I used 4 (actually 5) as you suggested though.
> 
> So far, I pushed to rawhide:
> 
>  * 1.3.3-4
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/mod_cluster.git/commit/
> ?id=6bf9d20ffd40b625762637ffeb43a1570f3a7785
>  * 1.3.3-5
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/mod_cluster.git/commit/
> ?id=0e223e9831a01f92de47be11d8a652bbe87f6e07
>  * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15431508
> 
> and I tested upgrade from 1.2.6 on f24. Wildfly would need additional
> testing as soon as it's updated, because I used Wildfly from zip and just
> replaced mod_cluster libs so as to make sure mod_cluster rpm provides all
> necessary classes.
> 
> Any reason not to carry on with f25 and f24? There is none from the
> mod_cluster project view, nobody could use mod_cluster in Fedora these days
> in any production env because it actually doesn't work (numerous bugs,
> performance issues, CVEs...).

Unfortunately, for Wildfly (10.1.0), import in the other branches, different
from the master, is not possible ...
Some dependencies if you update would create a lot of compatibility problems
...
not to mention the jackson libraries (2.7.x) ...
If you want update mod_cluster in other branches for me is ok if this not cause
compatibility problems

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 977116] Review Request: pgmodeler - PostgreSQL Database Modeler

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977116



--- Comment #45 from Pavel Alexeev  ---
Changes:
https://github.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/commit/792ee607b4292c235fed781577079a5c013f4b05
Spec:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Hubbitus/Fedora-packaging/792ee607b4292c235fed781577079a5c013f4b05/SPECS/pgmodeler.spec
Srpm:
http://rpm.hubbitus.info/Fedora24/pgmodeler/pgmodeler-0.8.2-2.fc24.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243



--- Comment #28 from Michal Karm Babacek  ---
Hi Gil, thank you for the file, it's so much cleaner with the pom macros.

I used it almost without changes, but my local, scratch and smoke test failed,
so I did several additional changes. I hope they are cool.

Current state: https://github.com/Karm/mod_cluster-fedora-packages/

Summary of changes:

 - removed buildarch due to: RPM build errors: Arch dependent binaries in
noarch package

 - version classifier .Final is part of version now, we don't need to use it
separately, it's always part of the version

 - we need tomcat-lib for build, so I added mvn(..) macros that lead to
tomcat-lib dependency rather than directly requiring tomcat just for build


Smoke-tested


Wildfly starts with mod_cluster from the 
mod_cluster-java-1.3.3.Final-2.fc24.x86_64.rpm, so it doesn't need tomcat 8
stuff, and that is good.

>21:32:09,263 INFO  [org.jboss.modcluster] (ServerService Thread Pool -- 59) 
>MODCLUSTER01: Initializing mod_cluster version 1.3.3.Final
>21:32:09,287 INFO  [org.jboss.modcluster] (ServerService Thread Pool -- 59) 
>MODCLUSTER32: Listening to proxy advertisements on /224.0.1.105:23364

Tomcat 8 starts correctly:

>29-Aug-2016 21:35:36.221 INFO [main] 
>org.jboss.modcluster.ModClusterService.init MODCLUSTER01: Initializing 
>mod_cluster version 1.3.3.Final
>29-Aug-2016 21:35:36.242 INFO [main] 
>org.jboss.modcluster.advertise.impl.AdvertiseListenerImpl.start 
>MODCLUSTER32: Listening to proxy advertisements on /224.0.1.105:23364

Apache HTTP Server loads modules and starts advertising:

>[Mon Aug 29 21:36:54.575797 2016] [mpm_prefork:notice] [pid 3861] AH00163: 
>Apache/2.4.23 (Fedora) OpenSSL/1.0.2h-fips mod_cluster/1.3.3.Final configured 
>-- resuming normal operations


Successful f23, f24, f25 scratch builds
===
f23 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15430973
f24 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15430968
f25 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15430970


So, I'll push it to the Fedora repo :-)  WDYT?

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243



--- Comment #30 from gil cattaneo  ---
Created attachment 1195542
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1195542=edit
fix BR list

 - marked as noarch only the java stuff

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Attachment|0   |1
#1195459 is||
   obsolete||



--- Comment #31 from gil cattaneo  ---
ops i see now in your spec file:

Version: 1.3.3.Final

is no good, please use

%global namedreltag .Final
%global namedversion %{version}%{?namedreltag}

%if 0%{?fedora}
%bcond_with java
%endif

Name:  mod_cluster
Version:   1.3.3
Release:   2%{?dist}


%prep
%setup -q -n %{name}-%{namedversion}

* Mon Aug 29 2016 gil cattaneo  1.3.3-4


as for all the other jboss/wildfly packages

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243

Michal Karm Babacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED



-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243



--- Comment #29 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Michal Karm Babacek from comment #28)
> Hi Gil, thank you for the file, it's so much cleaner with the pom macros.
> 
> I used it almost without changes, but my local, scratch and smoke test
> failed, so I did several additional changes. I hope they are cool.
> 
> Current state: https://github.com/Karm/mod_cluster-fedora-packages/
> 
> Summary of changes:
> 
>  - removed buildarch due to: RPM build errors: Arch dependent binaries in
> noarch package


"BuildArch:noarch" must be aded on in the java* packages
(sorry, i wrote a clean new spec and i forgotten to remove it in the main
package, my custom spec file template ...)

e.g.

%if %{without java}
%package java
Summary:  Java libraries for %{name}
BuildArch:noarch

%description java
This package contains %{name} core Java libraries
that can be used with WildFly application server. 

%package java-tomcat8
Summary:  Tomcat 8 Java libraries for %{name}
Requires: tomcat >= 1:8
BuildArch:noarch

%description java-tomcat8
This package contains %{name} Java libraries that can be used with Tomcat 8.

%package javadoc
Summary:  Javadoc for %{name}
BuildArch:noarch

%description javadoc
This package contains the API documentation for %{name}.
%endif



>  - we need tomcat-lib for build, so I added mvn(..) macros that lead to
> tomcat-lib dependency rather than directly requiring tomcat just for build

%if %{without java}
BuildRequires: maven-local
BuildRequires: mvn(net.jcip:jcip-annotations)
BuildRequires: mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-enforcer-plugin)
BuildRequires: mvn(org.apache.tomcat:tomcat-catalina)
BuildRequires: mvn(org.apache.tomcat:tomcat-coyote)
BuildRequires: mvn(org.apache.tomcat:tomcat-util)
BuildRequires: mvn(org.jboss:jboss-parent:pom:)
BuildRequires: mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging)
BuildRequires: mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-processor)
BuildRequires: mvn(org.jboss.spec.javax.servlet:jboss-servlet-api_3.0_spec)
%endif

you shold use "BuildRequires: mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-processor)"
in the pom files is specified this artifact.
not BuildRequires: mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-processor:pom:)


Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15431065

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366277] python-gfm - Github-Flavored Markdown for Python-Markdown

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366277



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-gfm-0.1.3-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If
problems still persist, 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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243



--- Comment #32 from Michal Karm Babacek  ---
Roger that... Updating

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243



--- Comment #33 from Michal Karm Babacek  ---
Shouldn't "Release" be actually 1 since this is the first 1.3.3.Final Release?

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Attachment|0   |1
#1195542 is||
   obsolete||



--- Comment #34 from gil cattaneo  ---
Created attachment 1195543
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1195543=edit
fix BR list

corrected Release field

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1343814] Review Request: vagrant-sshfs - A Vagrant synced folder plugin that mounts folders via SSHFS.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814



--- Comment #21 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/vagrant-sshfs

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243



--- Comment #35 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Michal Karm Babacek from comment #33)
> Shouldn't "Release" be actually 1 since this is the first 1.3.3.Final
> Release?

sorry i dont understand

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243



--- Comment #36 from gil cattaneo  ---
i dont understand also this
%mvn_file :mod_cluster-container-catalina-spi:jar:
tomcat/mod_cluster-container-catalina-spi

mod_cluster-container-catalina-spi do not exist, please remove

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243



--- Comment #38 from gil cattaneo  ---
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15431443

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243



--- Comment #40 from gil cattaneo  ---
Created attachment 1195551
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1195551=edit
remove useless pom macros

- fix BR list
- marked as noarch only the java stuff
- remove useless pom macros
- add subpackages for parent POMs
- use custom _httpd_confdir macro

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15431585

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1356739] Review Request: zulucrypt - Qt GUI front end to cryptsetup

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356739
Bug 1356739 depends on bug 1356657, which changed state.

Bug 1356657 Summary: Review Request: lxqt-wallet - Create a kwallet like 
functionality for LXQt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356657

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|ERRATA  |---



-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370948] Review Request: libmfx - Intel hardware video acceleration dispatcher library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370948



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/libmfx

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243



--- Comment #25 from gil cattaneo  ---
See spec file linked only the mod_cluster JARS (and not also the pom files) in
%{_javadir}/tomcat

handle in this way
ln -sf %{_javadir}/jboss-logging/jboss-logging.jar \
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/tomcat/jboss-logging.jar

jboss-logging is not part of the package

Remove useless Provides and adjust Requires

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1371340] New: Review Request: miniflux - Minimalist web based news reader

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371340

Bug ID: 1371340
   Summary: Review Request: miniflux - Minimalist web based news
reader
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: bos...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://bostrt.fedorapeople.org/miniflux.spec
SRPM URL: https://bostrt.fedorapeople.org/miniflux-1.1.10-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description:

I've created a package for a web based new reader called miniflux. I look
forward to a review and any improvement suggestions!

Fedora Account System Username: bostrt

Successful Koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15432310

# rpmlint miniflux.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# rpmlint miniflux.spec ../RPMS/noarch/miniflux-1.1.10-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
../SRPMS/miniflux-1.1.10-1.fc24.src.rpm 
miniflux.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile
/usr/share/miniflux/config.php
miniflux.noarch: W: no-documentation
miniflux.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/miniflux/vendor/fguillot/picofeed/lib/PicoFeed/Rules/.over-blog.com.php
miniflux.noarch: E: htaccess-file /usr/share/miniflux/rules/.htaccess
miniflux.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/miniflux/vendor/fguillot/picofeed/lib/PicoFeed/Rules/.blogs.nytimes.com.php
miniflux.noarch: E: htaccess-file /usr/share/miniflux/controllers/.htaccess
miniflux.noarch: E: htaccess-file /usr/share/miniflux/data/favicons/.htaccess
miniflux.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/miniflux/vendor/fguillot/picofeed/lib/PicoFeed/Rules/.nytimes.com.php
miniflux.noarch: E: htaccess-file /usr/share/miniflux/fever/.htaccess
miniflux.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/miniflux/vendor/fguillot/picofeed/lib/PicoFeed/Rules/.blog.lemonde.fr.php
miniflux.noarch: E: htaccess-file /usr/share/miniflux/models/.htaccess
miniflux.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/miniflux/vendor/fguillot/picofeed/lib/PicoFeed/Rules/.igen.fr.php
miniflux.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/miniflux/vendor/fguillot/picofeed/lib/PicoFeed/Rules/.wikipedia.org.php
miniflux.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/miniflux/vendor/fguillot/picofeed/lib/PicoFeed/Rules/.theguardian.com.php
miniflux.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/miniflux/vendor/fguillot/picofeed/lib/PicoFeed/Rules/.wsj.com.php
miniflux.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/miniflux/vendor/fguillot/picofeed/lib/PicoFeed/Rules/.slate.com.php
miniflux.noarch: E: htaccess-file /usr/share/miniflux/data/.htaccess
miniflux.noarch: E: htaccess-file /usr/share/miniflux/templates/.htaccess
miniflux.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/miniflux/vendor/fguillot/picofeed/lib/PicoFeed/Rules/.phoronix.com.php
miniflux.noarch: E: htaccess-file /usr/share/miniflux/lib/.htaccess
miniflux.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/miniflux/vendor/fguillot/picofeed/lib/PicoFeed/Rules/.wired.com.php
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 13 warnings.

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1325378] Review Request: spasm-ng - A z80 assembler with extra features for TI calculators

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1325378



--- Comment #9 from Ben Rosser  ---
I've removed the static libs as part of the %prep stage (they weren't being
used as part of the compile process anyway but this way we can be sure of
that).

I've removed the gmp.h header; spasm links against a system-wide gmp instead so
it doesn't really need that header file anyway.

The stringencoders sources... sigh. I managed to not notice those initially, my
bad. I think I am going to eventually have a go at properly unbundling this and
packaging stringencoders separately. 

For now, though... stringencoders does not seem to actually believe in release
versions that aren't just a date; if you look at the changelog here, for
instance: https://github.com/client9/stringencoders/blob/master/ChangeLog. The
sources were added to spasm (pre-spasm-ng fork) on 8/20/2011;
https://wabbit.codeplex.com/SourceControl/changeset/69815. My best guess at a
version, then, would be "19-Mar-2010". Should I stylize this as 2010.03.19,
should I use the date the files were added (2011.08.20), or do something
different? (For now, I've used 2011.08.20, since that would be the date the
files were pulled).

I have opened an issue upstream asking for license clarification / license
headers. https://github.com/alberthdev/spasm-ng/issues/37.

And I have removed the rm -rf %{buildroot}.

Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/spasm/spasm-ng.spec
SRPM URL:
https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/spasm/spasm-ng-0.5-0.4.beta.2.fc24.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350143] Review Request: fmt - Small, safe and fast formating library for C++

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350143



--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System  ---
fmt-3.0.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-01c61f348c

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350143] Review Request: fmt - Small, safe and fast formating library for C++

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350143



--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System  ---
fmt-3.0.0-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-7ef9eb36f2

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350143] Review Request: fmt - Small, safe and fast formating library for C++

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350143



--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System  ---
fmt-3.0.0-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f1360cf8eb

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350143] Review Request: fmt - Small, safe and fast formating library for C++

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350143

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350143] Review Request: fmt - Small, safe and fast formating library for C++

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350143



--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
fmt-3.0.0-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-70fa132149

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370874] Review Request: gap-pkg-automata - Finite automata algorithms

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370874



--- Comment #2 from Jerry James  ---
Hi gil.  Sure, I'll take one of those.  I probably won't have time to review it
for a day or two, though.  I'll start as soon as I can.  Thanks!

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1367598] Review Request: gap-pkg-guava - Computing with error-correcting codes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1367598



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
gap-pkg-guava-3.13.1-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-2547786f05

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1367598] Review Request: gap-pkg-guava - Computing with error-correcting codes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1367598



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
gap-pkg-guava-3.13.1-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-bcd5fe40a8

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1367598] Review Request: gap-pkg-guava - Computing with error-correcting codes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1367598

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED



-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1325378] Review Request: spasm-ng - A z80 assembler with extra features for TI calculators

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1325378



--- Comment #10 from Ben Rosser  ---
Oh, my bad, I forgot to amend the License tag to reflect the bundling too.
Updated; not bumping the release for this change:

Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/spasm/spasm-ng.spec
SRPM URL:
https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/spasm/spasm-ng-0.5-0.4.beta.2.fc24.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366839] Review Request: openhft-affinity - Java Thread Affinity library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366839



--- Comment #3 from Ben Rosser  ---
Package Review
==

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

Issues:
===
- There are some Apache 2.0 licensed source files; the license should be
appended accordingly if they're actually being built:

Java-Thread-Affinity-affinity-3.0.6/affinity/src/main/c/net_openhft_ticker_impl_JNIClock.cpp
Java-Thread-Affinity-affinity-3.0.6/affinity/src/main/c/software_chronicle_enterprise_internals_impl_NativeAffinity.cpp
Java-Thread-Affinity-affinity-3.0.6/affinity/src/main/c/software_chronicle_enterprise_internals_impl_NativeAffinity_MacOSX.c
Java-Thread-Affinity-affinity-3.0.6/affinity/src/main/java/net/openhft/affinity/MicroJitterSampler.java

- The directory %{_libdir}/openhft-affinity is unowned; it should be owned by
the main package.

= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "LGPL", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bjr/Programming/fedora/reviews/1366839-openhft-
 affinity/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/openhft-affinity
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/openhft-affinity
[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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: 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 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

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
 Note: Maven 

[Bug 1099033] Review Request: adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts - A set of serif OpenType fonts designed to complement Source Sans Pro

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1099033



--- Comment #7 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
(In reply to Michael Kuhn from comment #5)
> Are you still interested in reviewing the package? Please give some feedback
> so I can find another reviewer if necessary. Thanks!

Sorry I don't understand, Had we talked before and I promised for this package
review to you?

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1099033] Review Request: adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts - A set of serif OpenType fonts designed to complement Source Sans Pro

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1099033



--- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
(In reply to Michael Kuhn from comment #4)
> I am interested in getting this font into Fedora. I have updated the package
> based on the updates for adobe-source-code-pro-fonts (bug 1246597) and
> adobe-source-sans-pro-fonts (bug 1246765).
> 
> Spec URL:
> https://ikkoku.de/~suraia/adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts/adobe-source-serif-
> pro-fonts.spec
> SRPM URL:
> https://ikkoku.de/~suraia/adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts/adobe-source-serif-
> pro-fonts-1.017-1.fc23.src.rpm
> 
> Description:
> Source Serif Pro is a set of OpenType fonts to complement the Source Sans
> Pro family.
> 
> Fedora Account System Username: suraia

You should open a new bugzilla. This bugzilla was already closed. If you were
the original submitter then you could have opened it back but you are a fresh
package submitter.

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 977116] Review Request: pgmodeler - PostgreSQL Database Modeler

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977116

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
   Assignee|ignate...@redhat.com|nob...@fedoraproject.org



--- Comment #46 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
I want to review this, but I'm out of time.. Sorry for my late response.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366839] Review Request: openhft-affinity - Java Thread Affinity library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366839



--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Ben Rosser from comment #3)

> Issues:
> ===
> - There are some Apache 2.0 licensed source files; the license should be
> appended accordingly if they're actually being built:
> 
> Java-Thread-Affinity-affinity-3.0.6/affinity/src/main/c/
> net_openhft_ticker_impl_JNIClock.cpp
> Java-Thread-Affinity-affinity-3.0.6/affinity/src/main/c/
> software_chronicle_enterprise_internals_impl_NativeAffinity.cpp
> Java-Thread-Affinity-affinity-3.0.6/affinity/src/main/c/
> software_chronicle_enterprise_internals_impl_NativeAffinity_MacOSX.c
> Java-Thread-Affinity-affinity-3.0.6/affinity/src/main/java/net/openhft/
> affinity/MicroJitterSampler.java

Done

> - The directory %{_libdir}/openhft-affinity is unowned; it should be owned
> by the main package.

Done


Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/openhft-affinity.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/openhft-affinity-3.0.6-2.fc24.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1367971] Review Request: plasma-applet-weather-widget

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1367971

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |MODIFIED



-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1367971] Review Request: plasma-applet-weather-widget

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1367971



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
plasma-applet-weather-widget-1.6.7-4.fc25 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9adc606b69

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1099033] Review Request: adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts - A set of serif OpenType fonts designed to complement Source Sans Pro

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1099033

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW)



--- Comment #8 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
I forgot to add FE-DEADREVIEW on this bug last time. Correcting it now. See its
meaning at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Special_blocker_tickets


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449
[Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter
response should be blocking this bug.
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1325378] Review Request: spasm-ng - A z80 assembler with extra features for TI calculators

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1325378

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #11 from gil cattaneo  ---
Approved

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1325378] Review Request: spasm-ng - A z80 assembler with extra features for TI calculators

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1325378



--- Comment #12 from Ben Rosser  ---
Thanks!

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1369465] Review Request: rubygem-resolve-hostname - Hostname resolver with caching

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369465



--- Comment #1 from Yanis Guenane  ---
SPEC URL: https://paste.fedoraproject.org/416807/60254147/raw/
SRPM URL:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5744/15425744/rubygem-resolve-hostname-0.0.4-1.fc24.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1369374] Review Request: python2-faulthandler - Display the Python traceback on a crash

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369374



--- Comment #2 from Dominika Krejčí  ---
It should be up-to-date, now. :)

Spec URL:
https://dkrejci.fedorapeople.org/python2-faulthandler/python2-faulthandler.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dkrejci.fedorapeople.org/python2-faulthandler/python2-faulthandler-2.4-1.fc24.src.rpm

Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15425733

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366837] Review Request: webjars-locator - WebJar Locator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366837



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
webjars-locator-0.32-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository.
If problems still persist, 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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1363923] Review Request: springframework4 - Spring Java Application Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1363923
Bug 1363923 depends on bug 1366837, which changed state.

Bug 1366837 Summary: Review Request: webjars-locator - WebJar Locator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366837

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1369464] Review Request: rubygem-proxifier - Proxifier is a gem to force ruby to use a proxy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369464



--- Comment #2 from Yanis Guenane  ---
SPEC URL:
https://gist.githubusercontent.com/Spredzy/68b293763e5e0b7c1cd6fef0769d51cf/raw/67cf8953770193bd9187f3722d289d900ab08cd9/rubygem-proxifier.spec
SRPM URL:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5796/15425796/rubygem-proxifier-1.0.3-1.fc24.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1369464] Review Request: rubygem-proxifier - Proxifier is a gem to force ruby to use a proxy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369464



--- Comment #3 from Yanis Guenane  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package contains Requires: ruby(release).


= MUST items =

Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
 upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
 licenses manually.
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
 /usr/share/gems/doc
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: 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

Ruby:
[ ]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
 independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[ ]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
 Note: Package contains font files
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem-
 proxifier-doc
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: Package 

[Bug 1369465] Review Request: rubygem-resolve-hostname - Hostname resolver with caching

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369465



--- Comment #4 from Yanis Guenane  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package contains Requires: ruby(release).


= MUST items =

Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/spredzy/rpmbuild/SPECS/1369465
 -rubygem-resolve-hostname/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
 /usr/share/gems/doc
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: 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

Ruby:
[ ]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
 independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[ ]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
 Note: Package contains font files
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem-
 resolve-hostname-doc
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if 

[Bug 1298238] Review Request: python-babelfish - Python library to work with countries and languages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298238

Julien Enselme  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2016-03-14 09:45:17 |2016-08-29 03:44:56



--- Comment #14 from Julien Enselme  ---
The package is in the repo now. Closing 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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366837] Review Request: webjars-locator - WebJar Locator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366837

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-08-29 04:03:13



-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366835] Review Request: reactive-streams - A Protocol for Asynchronous Non-Blocking Data Sequence

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366835



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
reactive-streams-1.0.0-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable
repository. If problems still persist, 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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366838] Review Request: gs-collections - A supplement or replacement for the Java Collections Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366838

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-08-29 04:02:57



-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366835] Review Request: reactive-streams - A Protocol for Asynchronous Non-Blocking Data Sequence

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366835

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-08-29 04:03:04



-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366838] Review Request: gs-collections - A supplement or replacement for the Java Collections Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366838



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
gs-collections-5.1.0-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository.
If problems still persist, 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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366845] Review Request: reactor - Reactive fast data framework for the JVM

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366845
Bug 1366845 depends on bug 1366838, which changed state.

Bug 1366838 Summary: Review Request: gs-collections - A supplement or 
replacement for the Java Collections Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366838

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366845] Review Request: reactor - Reactive fast data framework for the JVM

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366845
Bug 1366845 depends on bug 1366835, which changed state.

Bug 1366835 Summary: Review Request: reactive-streams - A Protocol for 
Asynchronous Non-Blocking Data Sequence
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366835

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1369465] Review Request: rubygem-resolve-hostname - Hostname resolver with caching

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369465



--- Comment #2 from Yanis Guenane  ---
SPEC URL:
https://gist.githubusercontent.com/Spredzy/983de7ef2db28ed679f44fe384badabf/raw/27e7cbe4619264d2944f48838761c71c299b33f5/rubygem-resolve-hostname.spec
SRPM URL:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5744/15425744/rubygem-resolve-hostname-0.0.4-1.fc24.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1365535] Review Request: entr - Run arbitrary commands when files change

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365535



--- Comment #5 from Lubomír Sedlář  ---
Good point.

Spec: https://lsedlar.fedorapeople.org/entr/entr.spec
SRPM: https://lsedlar.fedorapeople.org/entr/entr-3.6-7.fc24.src.rpm
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15424423

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1360365] Review Request: python-pytest-mock - Thin-wrapper around the mock package for easier use with py.test

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360365



--- Comment #2 from Julien Enselme  ---
Sorry for the delay:

* Mon Aug 29 2016 Julien Enselme  - 1.1-2
- Add python2-mock to BR so %%check passes correctly.

SRPM: http://dl.jujens.eu/SRPMS/python-pytest-mock-1.1-2.fc24.src.rpm
SPEC: http://dl.jujens.eu/SPECS/python-pytest-mock.spec
scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15424875

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1369374] Review Request: python2-faulthandler - Display the Python traceback on a crash

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369374



--- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
* Missing BuildRequires: python2-setuptools
* python-nose -> python2-nose

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1369465] Review Request: rubygem-resolve-hostname - Hostname resolver with caching

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369465



--- Comment #3 from Yanis Guenane  ---
SPEC URL:
https://gist.githubusercontent.com/Spredzy/983de7ef2db28ed679f44fe384badabf/raw/521def4c9e5adb7efc5d82050eb1f059646fec09/rubygem-resolve-hostname.spec
SRPM URL:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5980/15425980/rubygem-resolve-hostname-0.0.4-1.fc24.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1369374] Review Request: python2-faulthandler - Display the Python traceback on a crash

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369374



--- Comment #4 from Dominika Krejčí  ---
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #3)
> * Missing BuildRequires: python2-setuptools
> * python-nose -> python2-nose

Thanks, fixed.


Spec URL:
https://dkrejci.fedorapeople.org/python2-faulthandler/python2-faulthandler.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dkrejci.fedorapeople.org/python2-faulthandler/python2-faulthandler-2.4-1.fc24.src.rpm

Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15425839

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1365535] Review Request: entr - Run arbitrary commands when files change

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365535



--- Comment #3 from Lubomír Sedlář  ---
Thank you for the patch, the changes look very reasonable to me. (I admit I was
struggling with the %setup part, and your version is much simpler than mine).

Spec: https://lsedlar.fedorapeople.org/entr/entr.spec
SRPM: https://lsedlar.fedorapeople.org/entr/entr-3.6-6.fc24.src.rpm
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15423416

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1367569] Review Request: perl-PFT - Hacker friendly static blog generator, core library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1367569

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #11 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
(In reply to Giovanni from comment #9)
> Hello Parag
> 
> In reply to Comment 7:
> 
> 1) Done. I found a bit weird the fact that rpmdev-bumpspec is not using the
> angular bracket. However I've fixed it manually.

When I tried this
rpmdev-bumpspec per-PFT.spec

I can see the angular bracket in the newly added changelog entry. Not sure what
is missing at your system.

> 
> 2) I've fixed the README files upstream, however the SPEC file is pointing
> with Source0 to the archive of version 1.0.3. In order to enable the new
> README I should bump the version of the whole package and probably
> re-publish on CPAN too. The same applies to APP::PFT 1.0.5.

I will not block this review for this README update issue but good if you can
do next release soon and update this package in Fedora.

> 
> 3) Thanks for the suggestion. I've used tangerine as suggested, and you will
> find the updated SPEC (links follow). Just out of curiosity I've checked
> with mock if the RPM was constructed with the original set of
> `BuildRequires:`, and it turned out to be feasible nevertheless (the missing
> `BuildRequires:` were not installed as transitive dependencies!). I think
> however it's good to be conservative and to rely on the tangerine tool.

I see that some BuildRequires you added are installed by just "perl" package
and some are by their own packages. Feel free to contact perl developers in
#fedora-perl IRC channel for more information on tagerine tool.

> 
> Finally, I'm currently involved in the review of someone else's package:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307271


Thank you for doing some package review.

> 
> SPEC:
> http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/dacav/pft/perl-PFT.git/plain/
> perl-PFT.spec
> SRPM:
> https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dacav/pft/fedora-rawhide-
> x86_64/00446658-perl-PFT/perl-PFT-1.0.3-4.fc26.src.rpm

This looks good.

APPROVED this package.

Please follow 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Contributor page step 8 
OR
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors
page step 8

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1365535] Review Request: entr - Run arbitrary commands when files change

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365535

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
Missing BuildRequires: gcc

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1369471] Review Request: rubygem-fluent-plugin-secure-forward - Fluentd input/ output plugin to forward over SSL with authentications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369471



--- Comment #3 from Yanis Guenane  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
- Package contains Requires: ruby(release).


= MUST items =

Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/spredzy/rpmbuild/SPECS/1369471
 -rubygem-fluent-plugin-secure-forward/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
 /usr/share/gems/doc
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: 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

Ruby:
[ ]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
 independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[ ]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
 Note: Package contains font files
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem-
 fluent-plugin-secure-forward-doc
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches 

[Bug 1369465] Review Request: rubygem-resolve-hostname - Hostname resolver with caching

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369465

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366687] Review Request: gnutls30 - A TLS protocol implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366687

Jan Včelák  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-08-29 05:49:39



--- Comment #17 from Jan Včelák  ---
Thank you for the review, Nikos! :-)

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1369465] Review Request: rubygem-resolve-hostname - Hostname resolver with caching

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369465

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||mru...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mru...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #5 from Matthias Runge  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package contains Requires: ruby(release).

I can't spot that somewhere in the spec file. Must be a false negative.


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/1369465-rubygem-resolve-
 hostname/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
 /usr/share/gems/doc
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: 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

Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
 independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
 Note: Package contains font files
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final 

[Bug 1369471] Review Request: rubygem-fluent-plugin-secure-forward - Fluentd input/ output plugin to forward over SSL with authentications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369471



--- Comment #2 from Yanis Guenane  ---
SPEC URL:
https://gist.githubusercontent.com/Spredzy/ee36eea92eb9d00a4833afb8bd7b1541/raw/08f08d7c5aa618f89af8f641e16ce77f15a65500/rubygem-fluent-plugin-secure-forward.spec
SRPM URL
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6770/15426770/rubygem-fluent-plugin-secure-forward-0.4.3-1.fc24.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1369464] Review Request: rubygem-proxifier - Proxifier is a gem to force ruby to use a proxy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369464

Matthias Runge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Matthias Runge  ---
I checked the updated package again, and now I couldn't find any issues.

Package APPROVED

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1302876] Review Request: clatd - CLAT / SIIT-DC Edge Relay implementation for Linux

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302876



--- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/clatd

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 967620] Review Request: edelib - Small and portable C++ library for EDE

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967620

Douglas Schilling Landgraf  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |EOL
Last Closed||2016-08-29 10:46:13



--- Comment #28 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf  ---
closing this bug and the package is orphan at this time.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1358215] Review Request: direnv - shell environment variable manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358215

Dusty Mabe  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||dustym...@redhat.com



--- Comment #3 from Dusty Mabe  ---
hey Dominic.

I think everything looks good. I've got one comment in there about parallel
make.

This is my first go package review so please forgive me if I've missed
something obvious. Maybe we can get a more experienced go packager to review
this as well.


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Cannot run licensecheck: Command 'licensecheck -r
 /var/lib/mock/fedora-24-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/direnv-2.9.0'
 returned non-zero exit status 1
[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.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.

DWM: Maybe consider adding this flag to your call to make?
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Parallel_make

[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in direnv-
 debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original 

[Bug 1358215] Review Request: direnv - shell environment variable manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1358215

Jan Chaloupka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jchal...@redhat.com



--- Comment #4 from Jan Chaloupka  ---
Would be handy to at least:

%global providergithub
%global provider_tldcom 
%global project direnv
%global repodirenv
# https://github.com/direnv/direnv
%global provider_prefix %{provider}.%{provider_tld}/%{project}/%{repo}
%global import_path %{provider_prefix}
%global commit  2bb2df4ca3bf3f45d1f36372c279615239e5c0f4

The commit is important so automatic tooling can scan your spec file and
connect the code with commit and repository.

Then use

# e.g. el6 has ppc64 arch without gcc-go, so EA tag is required
ExclusiveArch:  %{?go_arches:%{go_arches}}%{!?go_arches:%{ix86} x86_64 %{arm}}
# If go_compiler is not set to 1, there is no virtual provide. Use golang
instead.
BuildRequires:  %{?go_compiler:compiler(go-compiler)}%{!?go_compiler:golang}

instead of

ExclusiveArch: %{go_arches}
BuildRequires: compiler(go-compiler)

to make it portable to other architectures. %{go_arches} is not defined
everywhere, the same holds for the compiler(go-compiler)

There are no devel packages so no need for devel subpackage.

-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366028] Review Request: python-flask-migrate - SQLAlchemy database migrations for Flask applications using Alembic

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366028



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-flask-migrate-2.0.0-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable
repository. If problems still persist, 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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366028] Review Request: python-flask-migrate - SQLAlchemy database migrations for Flask applications using Alembic

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366028

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-08-29 11:37:23



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1311909] Review Request: compose-utils - utilitities for working with composes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1311909

Lubomír Sedlář  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-08-29 11:33:34



-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1365535] Review Request: entr - Run arbitrary commands when files change

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365535

Lubomír Sedlář  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-08-29 12:03:02



-- 
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org