[Bug 1445366] Review Request: unicode-emoji - Unicode Emoji Data Files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1445366

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #8 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Above update looks good now.
Package APPROVED.

Proceed now with step 7 given on
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1445366] Review Request: unicode-emoji - Unicode Emoji Data Files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1445366



--- Comment #7 from Mike FABIAN  ---

I updated the files to fix these issues:

Spec URL: https://mfabian.fedorapeople.org/misc/unicode-emoji.spec
SRPM URL:
https://mfabian.fedorapeople.org/misc/unicode-emoji-4.0-3.fc27.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1445366] Review Request: unicode-emoji - Unicode Emoji Data Files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1445366



--- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Everytime package spec is modified/updated its good to increase the release
number and add appropriate changelog entry.

Package Review
==

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

Issues:
1) The only remaining issue now is that after installing this updated package,
no package owns directory /usr/share/unicode/emoji. To fix this add following
to %files as well

%dir %{emojidir}

2) Shouldn't license be "Unicode"? Please check this
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Unicode

= 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
 upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
 licenses manually.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/unicode/emoji
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/unicode/emoji
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/unicode(unicode-
 ucd, cldr-emoji-annotation)
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: 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 available.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 

[Bug 1443774] Review Request: nodejs-path-key - Get the PATH environment variable key cross-platform

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443774

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1443777

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Package Review
==

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



= 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/parag/1443774-nodejs-path-key/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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 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:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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 installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm 

[Bug 1443806] Review Request: nodejs-arr-exclude - Exclude certain items from an array

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443806

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1444571

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Package Review
==

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



= 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/parag/1443806-nodejs-arr-exclude/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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 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:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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 installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with 

[Bug 1443790] Review Request: nodejs-has-yarn - Check if a project is using Yarn

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443790

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1444571

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Package Review
==

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



= 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/parag/1443790-nodejs-has-yarn/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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 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:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
 Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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 installed
 files.
[x]: 

[Bug 1447224] Review Request: nodejs-he - A robust HTML entity encoder/ decoder written in JavaScript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447224



--- Comment #4 from Parag Nemade  ---
I decided to remove that single file scripts/scrape-spec.js which needs
phantomjs binary.

Spec URL: http://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/nodejs-he.spec
SRPM URL:
http://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/nodejs-he-1.1.1-3.fc26.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1444634] Review Request: openvdb - C++ library for sparse volumetric data discretized on three-dimensional grids

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444634

Luya Tshimbalanga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||l...@fedoraproject.org



--- Comment #2 from Luya Tshimbalanga  ---
Based on the review

Package Review
==

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


Issues to fix:
==
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: make
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
  (~1MB) or number of files.
  Note: Documentation size is 67993600 bytes in 2648 files.
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation


= 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[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: "*No copyright* MPL (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "MPL
 (v2.0) BSD (3 clause)". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output
 of licensecheck in /home/luya/Documents/fedora-
 packaging/review/1444634-openvdb/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package 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.
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query 

[Bug 1445675] Review Request: alembic - Open framework for storing and sharing scene data

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1445675



--- Comment #2 from Luya Tshimbalanga  ---
Package Review
==

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


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 51 files have unknown
 license. 
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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:
[-]: 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 below).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in alembic-
 libs , alembic-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[?]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to 

[Bug 1444569] Review Request: nodejs-locate-path - Get the first path that exists on disk of multiple paths

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444569



--- Comment #4 from Jared Smith  ---
In rawhide, closing bug

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1439894] Review Request: python-ddiskit - tool for building Driver Update Disk modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1439894

Zdenek Dohnal  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||skoz...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(skoz...@redhat.co
   ||m)



--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
Hi,

sorry for delay, there is my review - there is some issues, but most "MUST" are
ok. So it will need some more work.

Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- move scripts from %{python_sitelib} to /usr/share/ddiskit
- create man page - binary should have man page
- mark ddiskit.bash as config with %config(noreplace)
- if you have new directories in %files section, you need to define it before
  using with %dir - f.e. %dir %{datadir}/%{srcname}
- where you are using "ddiskit" in spec, you can use %{srcname} - it is more
  general solution
- dependency on kernel-devel - is it necessary?
- empty files 'default' and 'rh-release' in 'profiles' directory - delete them
  or add into them some comments like "This file is for..."
- no need for %{srcname} global macro - you should use %{name} macro

= 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: "GPL (v3)", "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/zdohnal/repo_upstream/ddiskit/review-ddiskit/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/ddiskit/templates,
 /usr/share/ddiskit, /usr/share/ddiskit/profiles

- if you have new directories in %files section, you need to define it before
  using with %dir - f.e. %dir %{datadir}/%{srcname}

[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/ddiskit/profiles,
 /usr/share/ddiskit/templates, /usr/share/ddiskit

- same as previous

[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
 Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: 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.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).

- you can use %{name} macro in spec

[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.

- dependency on kernel-devel?

[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]: 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.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

- it doesn't comply in issues mentioned before

[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]: 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]: 

[Bug 1395255] Review Request: python3-zope-interface - Zope 3 Interface Infrastructure

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395255

Orion Poplawski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||python3-zope-interface-4.3.
   ||3-1.el7
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2017-05-03 17:36:20



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1413038] Review Request: python3-simpleline - A Python3 library for creating text UI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413038

Orion Poplawski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||or...@cora.nwra.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|or...@cora.nwra.com



--- Comment #2 from Orion Poplawski  ---
- I don't your comments about the source are right - they appear to come
directly from github
- Drop %clean.
- Use %make_build for parallel make
- Group is not needed
- I prefer %check after %install since that is the order sections are run
- Even though this may be python3- only at the moment, I would still suggest
naming the package "python-simpleline".

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1447741] Review Request: sedutil - Tools to manage the activation and use of self encrypting drives

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447741



--- Comment #2 from Charles R. Anderson  ---
For replacing the msed package with sedutil, I have updated sedutil with
Obsoletes, but not Provides (since the CLI command sedutil-cli isn't a directly
compatible replacement of msed).

This also has some rpmlint warning fixes.

Spec URL: https://cra.fedorapeople.org/sedutil/sedutil.spec
SRPM URL: https://cra.fedorapeople.org/sedutil/sedutil-1.12-2.fc27.src.rpm

Scratch builds:

f27: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19390504
f26: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19390637
f25: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19390694

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1444569] Review Request: nodejs-locate-path - Get the first path that exists on disk of multiple paths

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444569

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-05-03 15:55:42



--- Comment #3 from Jared Smith  ---
In rawhide, closing bug

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1444569] Review Request: nodejs-locate-path - Get the first path that exists on disk of multiple paths

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444569
Bug 1444569 depends on bug 1444566, which changed state.

Bug 1444566 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-p-locate - Get the first fulfilled 
promise that satisfies the provided testing function
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444566

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1444566] Review Request: nodejs-p-locate - Get the first fulfilled promise that satisfies the provided testing function

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444566

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-05-03 15:10:21



--- Comment #3 from Jared Smith  ---
In rawhide, closing bug

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1444566] Review Request: nodejs-p-locate - Get the first fulfilled promise that satisfies the provided testing function

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444566
Bug 1444566 depends on bug 1444565, which changed state.

Bug 1444565 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-p-limit - Run multiple 
promise-returning & async functions with limited concurrency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444565

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1444565] Review Request: nodejs-p-limit - Run multiple promise-returning & async functions with limited concurrency

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444565

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-05-03 15:09:49



--- Comment #3 from Jared Smith  ---
In rawhide, closing bug

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1443805] Review Request: nodejs-write-pkg - Write a package.json file

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443805

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-05-03 15:02:31



--- Comment #3 from Jared Smith  ---
In rawhide, closing bug

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1444571] Review Request: nodejs-ava-init - Add AVA to your project

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444571
Bug 1444571 depends on bug 1443805, which changed state.

Bug 1443805 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-write-pkg - Write a package.json 
file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443805

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1447401] Review Request: pantheon-agent-polkit - Pantheon Polkit Agent

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447401



--- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Thanks for the review!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1447125] Review Request: gsignond-extension-pantheon - Pantheon extension for the gsignond daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447125



--- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Thanks for the review!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1437471] Review Request: golang-github-klauspost-reedsolomon - Reed-Solomon Erasure Coding in Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1437471



--- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Thanks for the review!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #24 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #21)
> ExclusiveArch:  x86 x86_64
> 
>  intels only  is also upstream verdict?

Yes, upstream checks during build:


> } else if (IS_LINUX && OS_ARCH != "i386" && OS_ARCH != "amd64") {
>throw new Exception("Unknown and unsupported build architecture: $OS_ARCH")
> }

Debian have patches for fixing #IFDEF's in the source code. I will not have
time to maintain a large set of patches, but I welcome any co-maintainers to do
that.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #22 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #19)
> RPM build errors:
> Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ChQeqH (%prep)
> ERROR: Exception(openjfx-8.0.152-5.b02.fc25.src.rpm)
> Config(fedora-rawhide-x86_64) 2 minutes 19 seconds
> INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result
> ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
> 
> I guess it is due to new autosetup macro at %autosetup -S git -n rt-8u152-b02
> 
> So buildrequires git is still mandatory.

Thanks, I did not know that

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #23 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #20)
> Also the link(s) to bindir keeps missing.

Yes, on my TODO

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1447401] Review Request: pantheon-agent-polkit - Pantheon Polkit Agent

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447401

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa  ---
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1447401] Review Request: pantheon-agent-polkit - Pantheon Polkit Agent

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447401



--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa  ---
Package Review
==

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



= 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: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 249 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/makerpm/1447401-pantheon-agent-polkit/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/share/locale/rue/LC_MESSAGES,
 /usr/share/locale/ckb/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/ckb,
 /usr/share/locale/rue
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/locale/ckb,
 /usr/share/locale/rue/LC_MESSAGES, /usr/share/locale/rue,
 /usr/share/locale/ckb/LC_MESSAGES
[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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
 desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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:
[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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 pantheon-agent-polkit-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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.

[Bug 1443805] Review Request: nodejs-write-pkg - Write a package.json file

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443805
Bug 1443805 depends on bug 1443803, which changed state.

Bug 1443803 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-write-json-file - Stringify and 
write JSON to a file atomically
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443803

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1443803] Review Request: nodejs-write-json-file - Stringify and write JSON to a file atomically

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443803

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-05-03 14:11:49



--- Comment #3 from Jared Smith  ---
In rawhide, closing bug

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1447125] Review Request: gsignond-extension-pantheon - Pantheon extension for the gsignond daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447125

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa  ---
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1447125] Review Request: gsignond-extension-pantheon - Pantheon extension for the gsignond daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447125



--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[-]: 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.

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.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL (v2.1 or later) LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "BSD (2 clause)",
 "LGPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 17 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/1447125
 -gsignond-extension-pantheon/licensecheck.txt
[-]: 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 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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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:
[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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 gsignond-pantheon-config , gsignond-extension-pantheon-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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve 

[Bug 1445887] Review Request: standard-test-roles - Standard Test Interface Ansible roles

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1445887



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
standard-test-roles-0.3-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-cbd26ed269

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1445887] Review Request: standard-test-roles - Standard Test Interface Ansible roles

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1445887



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
standard-test-roles-0.3-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-12ce8ed46e

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1445887] Review Request: standard-test-roles - Standard Test Interface Ansible roles

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1445887

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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1443803] Review Request: nodejs-write-json-file - Stringify and write JSON to a file atomically

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443803
Bug 1443803 depends on bug 1443802, which changed state.

Bug 1443802 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-sort-keys - Sort the keys of an 
object
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443802

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1443802] Review Request: nodejs-sort-keys - Sort the keys of an object

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443802

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-05-03 13:48:15



--- Comment #3 from Jared Smith  ---
In rawhide, closing bug

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1447732] Review Request: libsavitar - C++ implementation of 3mf loading with SIP Python bindings

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447732

Jaroslav Škarvada  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1245962] Review Request: golang-github-petar-GoLLRB - Left-Leaning Red-Black implementation of balanced binary search trees

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245962



--- Comment #7 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
> If it goes under %doc, it will get installed out of $GOPATH/src directory
> and becomes uncompileable. The usual use case is to run `go build
> github.com/petar/GoLLRB/blob/master/example'.
> 

One could build it in his home directory, right? It just feels odd to include
those examples in the package not as documentation as other non golang packages
do. We should compromise to a pattern though (if they are to be packaged in the
gopath, maybe this should be pointed in the guidelines).

> The MMDD date is impossible to detect without touching the corresponding
> git repository. It requires cloning a repository locally, checking the
> commit and accessing its commit date.
> 
> Additional, the guidelines are not clear what date to use. Date of the
> snapshot a.k.a commit date? rpmbuild date? Or any date?

The rpmbuild date seems to be enough [1]

[1]:
< tibbs> The idea is to communicate how old the snapshot is.
< athos> so using the date the packager took the snapshot would be ok, right
(although it may be ambiguous as ajax pointed out)?
< tibbs> Yes, that's fine.  It would only matter if you were specifically
taking a snapshot of a commit that is older than what's currently at the head.
< tibbs> The whole point, though, is to give humans a relatively easy way to
judge that something is "out of date".
< tibbs> Including a commit hash doesn't do that.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1377227] Review Request: golang-github-go-stack-stack - Implements utilities to capture, manipulate, and format call stacks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377227

Athos Ribeiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
Hello,

Thanks for the modifications. I opened an issue upstream asking if they could
include the full ASL2.0 text in the package [1]

Package looks good. Approved

[1] https://github.com/go-stack/stack/issues/7

Package Review
==

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

= 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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: 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 available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build 

[Bug 1444822] Review Request: nodejs-portfinder - A simple tool to find an open port or domain socket on the current machine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444822



--- Comment #6 from Parag Nemade  ---
Thanks for the upstream fix. Here is updated package

Spec URL: http://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/nodejs-portfinder.spec
SRPM URL:
http://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/nodejs-portfinder-1.0.13-3.fc26.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1444569] Review Request: nodejs-locate-path - Get the first path that exists on disk of multiple paths

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444569



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/nodejs-locate-path

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1444566] Review Request: nodejs-p-locate - Get the first fulfilled promise that satisfies the provided testing function

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444566



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/nodejs-p-locate

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1437471] Review Request: golang-github-klauspost-reedsolomon - Reed-Solomon Erasure Coding in Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1437471

Athos Ribeiro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
License is OK
Binary Requires and Provides are OK
There are no rpmlint warnings nor errors
%check runs and tests pass

Package builds successfully and complies to the packaging guidelines.

Approved!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1444565] Review Request: nodejs-p-limit - Run multiple promise-returning & async functions with limited concurrency

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444565



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/nodejs-p-limit

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1443805] Review Request: nodejs-write-pkg - Write a package.json file

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443805



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/nodejs-write-pkg

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1443803] Review Request: nodejs-write-json-file - Stringify and write JSON to a file atomically

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443803



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/nodejs-write-json-file

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1443802] Review Request: nodejs-sort-keys - Sort the keys of an object

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443802



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/nodejs-sort-keys

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1447224] Review Request: nodejs-he - A robust HTML entity encoder/ decoder written in JavaScript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447224



--- Comment #3 from Parag Nemade  ---
Thanks for the fix. Here is the updated package

Spec URL: http://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/nodejs-he.spec
SRPM URL:
http://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/nodejs-he-1.1.1-2.fc26.src.rpm

but I found that this package needs runtime dependency of phantomjs. Need to
check on it if it needs to be packaged in Fedora.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1447230] Review Request: nodejs-ecstatic - A static file server middleware that works with core http , express or on the CLI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447230

Parag Nemade  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1447224, 1447229




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447224
[Bug 1447224] Review Request: nodejs-he - A robust HTML entity
encoder/decoder written in JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447229
[Bug 1447229] Review Request: nodejs-url-join - Join all arguments together
and normalize the resulting url
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1447229] Review Request: nodejs-url-join - Join all arguments together and normalize the resulting url

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447229

Parag Nemade  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1447230




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447230
[Bug 1447230] Review Request: nodejs-ecstatic - A static file server
middleware that works with core http, express or on the CLI
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1447224] Review Request: nodejs-he - A robust HTML entity encoder/ decoder written in JavaScript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447224

Parag Nemade  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1447230




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447230
[Bug 1447230] Review Request: nodejs-ecstatic - A static file server
middleware that works with core http, express or on the CLI
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1447201] Review Request: nodejs-http-server - Simple, zero-configuration command-line http server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447201

Parag Nemade  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1447230




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447230
[Bug 1447230] Review Request: nodejs-ecstatic - A static file server
middleware that works with core http, express or on the CLI
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1447230] Review Request: nodejs-ecstatic - A static file server middleware that works with core http , express or on the CLI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447230

Parag Nemade  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1447201




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447201
[Bug 1447201] Review Request: nodejs-http-server - Simple,
zero-configuration command-line http server
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1444765] Review Request: nodejs-requires-port - Check if a protocol requires a certain port number

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444765



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-requires-port-1.0.0-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-3cc3d8a57b

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1444765] Review Request: nodejs-requires-port - Check if a protocol requires a certain port number

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444765

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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1447741] Review Request: sedutil - Tools to manage the activation and use of self encrypting drives

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447741



--- Comment #1 from Charles R. Anderson  ---
Scratch builds:

f27: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19389063
f26: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19388901
f25: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19388949

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1447741] Review Request: sedutil - Tools to manage the activation and use of self encrypting drives

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447741

Charles R. Anderson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1352870




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352870
[Bug 1352870] update msed to sedutil v. 1.12
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1447741] New: Review Request: sedutil - Tools to manage the activation and use of self encrypting drives

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447741

Bug ID: 1447741
   Summary: Review Request: sedutil - Tools to manage the
activation and use of self encrypting drives
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: c...@wpi.edu
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~cra/sedutil/sedutil.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~cra/sedutil/sedutil-1.12-1.fc27.src.rpm
Description: The Drive Trust Alliance software (sedutil) is an Open Source
(GPLv3)
effort to make Self Encrypting Drive technology freely available to
everyone. It is a combination of the two known available Open Source
code bases today: msed and OpalTool.

sedutil is a Self-Encrypting Drive (SED) management program and
Pre-Boot Authorization (PBA) image that will allow the activation and
use of self encrypting drives that comply with the Trusted Computing
Group Opal 2.0 SSC.

This package provides the sedutil-cli and linuxpba binaries, but not
the PBA image itself.

Fedora Account System Username: cra

Note: This package will eventually replace/obsolete the older msed package.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1445130] Review Request: nodejs-union - A hybrid streaming middleware kernel backwards compatible with connect

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1445130



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-union-0.4.6-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-3500db4e2d

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1445130] Review Request: nodejs-union - A hybrid streaming middleware kernel backwards compatible with connect

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1445130

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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1444925] Review Request: python-rpm-generators - The RPM python dependency generators

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444925

Tomas Orsava  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1444925] Review Request: python-rpm-generators - The RPM python dependency generators

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444925



--- Comment #8 from Tomas Orsava  ---

=== I'm taking over this package request ===


Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/torsava/misc/master/fedora-package-request/python-rpm-generators/python-rpm-generators.spec

SRPM URL:
https://github.com/torsava/misc/raw/master/fedora-package-request/python-rpm-generators/python-rpm-generators-4.13.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm

Patch files:
https://github.com/torsava/misc/tree/master/fedora-package-request/python-rpm-generators


Koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19388660

Koji build in bootsrapping mode:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19388667


Description:
This package provides scripts that analyse Python binary RPM packages and add
appropriate Provides and Requires tags to them.


Fedora Account System Username: torsava

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1447229] Review Request: nodejs-url-join - Join all arguments together and normalize the resulting url

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447229



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-url-join-2.0.1-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-1112245ee0

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1447229] Review Request: nodejs-url-join - Join all arguments together and normalize the resulting url

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447229

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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1444766] Review Request: nodejs-eventemitter3 - EventEmitter3 is a high performance EventEmmitter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444766

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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1444766] Review Request: nodejs-eventemitter3 - EventEmitter3 is a high performance EventEmmitter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444766



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-eventemitter3-2.0.3-2.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-a94909ba87

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #21 from jiri vanek  ---
ExclusiveArch:  x86 x86_64

 intels only  is also upstream verdict?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #20 from jiri vanek  ---
Also the link(s) to bindir keeps missing.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673



--- Comment #19 from jiri vanek  ---
Complete!
Finish: build setup for openjfx-8.0.152-5.b02.fc25.src.rpm
Start: rpmbuild openjfx-8.0.152-5.b02.fc25.src.rpm
Building target platforms: x86_64
Building for target x86_64
Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ChQeqH
+ umask 022
+ cd /builddir/build/BUILD
+ cd /builddir/build/BUILD
+ rm -rf rt-8u152-b02
+ /usr/bin/bzip2 -dc /builddir/build/SOURCES/8u152-b02.tar.bz2
+ /usr/bin/tar -xof -
+ STATUS=0
+ '[' 0 -ne 0 ']'
+ cd rt-8u152-b02
+ /usr/bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w .
+ /usr/bin/git init -q
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ChQeqH: line 42: /usr/bin/git: No such file or directory
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ChQeqH (%prep)


RPM build errors:
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ChQeqH (%prep)
ERROR: Exception(openjfx-8.0.152-5.b02.fc25.src.rpm)
Config(fedora-rawhide-x86_64) 2 minutes 19 seconds
INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result
ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.

I guess it is due to new autosetup macro at %autosetup -S git -n rt-8u152-b02

So buildrequires git is still mandatory.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1446571] Review Request: nodejs-http-proxy - A full-featured http proxy for node.js

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1446571



--- Comment #4 from Parag Nemade  ---
Fixed in below update

Spec URL: http://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/nodejs-http-proxy.spec
SRPM URL:
http://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/nodejs-http-proxy-1.16.2-2.fc26.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1447732] Review Request: libsavitar - C++ implementation of 3mf loading with SIP Python bindings

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447732

Miro Hrončok  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1393176




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393176
[Bug 1393176] Upstream has changed and there is a newer version available
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1447732] New: Review Request: libsavitar - C++ implementation of 3mf loading with SIP Python bindings

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447732

Bug ID: 1447732
   Summary: Review Request: libsavitar - C++ implementation of 3mf
loading with SIP Python bindings
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: mhron...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/libsavitar.spec
SRPM URL:
https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/libsavitar-0.0-1.20170501git1ad7ddb.fc25.src.rpm
Description: Savitar is a C++ implementation of 3mf loading with SIP Python
bindings. 3mf is a 3D printing file format.
Fedora Account System Username: churchyard

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1445366] Review Request: unicode-emoji - Unicode Emoji Data Files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1445366



--- Comment #5 from Mike FABIAN  ---
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #4)
> 1) Fix following rpmlint issues
> unicode-emoji.src: E: description-line-too-long C Unicode Emoji Data Files
> are the machine-readable emoji data files associated with
> 
> unicode-emoji.src: W: file-size-mismatch copyright.html = 17417,
> http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html = 16571
> ==> Re-download the upstream file and build the srpm
> 
> 2)License file copyright.html is not marked as %license
> 
> 3) ReadMe.txt file should be marked as %doc

I updated the files to fix these issues:

Spec URL: https://mfabian.fedorapeople.org/misc/unicode-emoji.spec
SRPM URL:
https://mfabian.fedorapeople.org/misc/unicode-emoji-4.0-1.fc27.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1446927] Review Request: rubygem-native-package-installer - Native packages installation helper

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1446927

Mamoru TASAKA  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||rubygem-native-package-inst
   ||aller-1.0.1-1.fc27
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2017-05-03 11:20:21



--- Comment #4 from Mamoru TASAKA  ---
Thank you for review! Closing.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1447230] Review Request: nodejs-ecstatic - A static file server middleware that works with core http , express or on the CLI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447230



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/nodejs-ecstatic

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1441728] Review Request: cld2 - Compact Language Detector 2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441728



--- Comment #8 from c72...@yahoo.de ---
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/c72578/rpmbuild/master/SPECS/cld2.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/c72578/cld2/fedora-25-x86_64/00546449-cld2/cld2-0.0.0-0.3.gitb56fa78.fc25.src.rpm

* Wed May 03 2017 Wolfgang Stöggl  - 0.0.0-0.3.gitb56fa78
- Fix unused-direct-shlib-dependency reported by rpmlint (installed packages)
- Update CMakeLists.txt to version 0.0.198, to avoid 
  shared-lib-without-dependency-information of libcld2_full

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1440481] Review Request: mapbox-variant - A header-only alternative to boost:: variant for C++11 and C++14

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1440481

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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1440481] Review Request: mapbox-variant - A header-only alternative to boost:: variant for C++11 and C++14

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1440481



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
geometry-hpp-0.9.1-1.fc25 mapbox-variant-1.1.5-2.fc25 has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-1a0090d6c8

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1440508] Review Request: wagyu - A general library for geometry operations of union, intersections , difference, and xor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1440508



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
geometry-hpp-0.9.1-1.fc25 mapbox-variant-1.1.5-2.fc25 has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-1a0090d6c8

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1440489] Review Request: geometry-hpp - Generic C++ interfaces for geometry types, collections, and features

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1440489

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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1440489] Review Request: geometry-hpp - Generic C++ interfaces for geometry types, collections, and features

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1440489



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
geometry-hpp-0.9.1-1.fc25 mapbox-variant-1.1.5-2.fc25 has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-1a0090d6c8

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1440481] Review Request: mapbox-variant - A header-only alternative to boost:: variant for C++11 and C++14

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1440481



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
wagyu-0.4.2-1.fc26 geometry-hpp-0.9.1-1.fc26 mapbox-variant-1.1.5-2.fc26 has
been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-f4c5f09cd5

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1440489] Review Request: geometry-hpp - Generic C++ interfaces for geometry types, collections, and features

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1440489



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
wagyu-0.4.2-1.fc26 geometry-hpp-0.9.1-1.fc26 mapbox-variant-1.1.5-2.fc26 has
been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-f4c5f09cd5

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1440508] Review Request: wagyu - A general library for geometry operations of union, intersections , difference, and xor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1440508

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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1414004] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-pending_for - Mark specs pending or skipped for specific Ruby engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1414004

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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1414004] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-pending_for - Mark specs pending or skipped for specific Ruby engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1414004



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-rspec-pending_for-0.1.5-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-169fc72a5d

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1414004] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-pending_for - Mark specs pending or skipped for specific Ruby engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1414004



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-rspec-pending_for-0.1.5-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora
EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-34c4e4709d

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1440508] Review Request: wagyu - A general library for geometry operations of union, intersections , difference, and xor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1440508



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
wagyu-0.4.2-1.fc26 geometry-hpp-0.9.1-1.fc26 mapbox-variant-1.1.5-2.fc26 has
been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-f4c5f09cd5

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1444569] Review Request: nodejs-locate-path - Get the first path that exists on disk of multiple paths

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444569

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Package Review
==

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



= 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/parag/1444569-nodejs-locate-path/licensecheck.txt
[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]: 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 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:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
 Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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 installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, 

[Bug 1444565] Review Request: nodejs-p-limit - Run multiple promise-returning & async functions with limited concurrency

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444565

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1444566

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Package Review
==

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



= 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/parag/1444565-nodejs-p-limit/licensecheck.txt
[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]: 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 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:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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 installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm 

[Bug 1444566] Review Request: nodejs-p-locate - Get the first fulfilled promise that satisfies the provided testing function

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444566

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1444569

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---


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

=> This looks because of dependency package npm(p-limit) not in repo.

= 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/parag/1444566-nodejs-p-locate/licensecheck.txt
[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]: 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]: 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:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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 

[Bug 1447230] Review Request: nodejs-ecstatic - A static file server middleware that works with core http , express or on the CLI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447230

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Jared Smith  ---
Package is APPROVED.

Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===


= 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 80 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/jsmith/Documents/Personal/Reviews/1447230-nodejs-
 ecstatic/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 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]: 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:
[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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: 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 available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in 

[Bug 1447224] Review Request: nodejs-he - A robust HTML entity encoder/ decoder written in JavaScript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447224

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from Jared Smith  ---
rpmlint throws three errors on this package:

nodejs-he.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/he /usr/bin/env node
nodejs-he.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/node_modules/he/scripts/scrape-spec.js /usr/bin/env phantomjs
nodejs-he.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/node_modules/he/scripts/scrape-spec.js 644 /usr/bin/env phantomjs

For the first and second, simply add the following lines to your %prep section:

sed -i '1s/env //' bin/he
sed -i '1s/env //' scripts/scrape-spec.js

For the third, you'll want use chmod to make the script executable.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1445887] Review Request: standard-test-roles - Standard Test Interface Ansible roles

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1445887



--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/standard-test-roles

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1425074] Review Request: nodejs-humanize-ms - Transform humanize time to ms

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1425074



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-agentkeepalive-3.1.0-1.fc26 nodejs-humanize-ms-1.2.0-1.fc26 has been
submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b3a8cd257a

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1425074] Review Request: nodejs-humanize-ms - Transform humanize time to ms

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1425074

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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1446927] Review Request: rubygem-native-package-installer - Native packages installation helper

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1446927



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/rubygem-native-package-installer

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1444766] Review Request: nodejs-eventemitter3 - EventEmitter3 is a high performance EventEmmitter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444766

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1446571




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1446571
[Bug 1446571] Review Request: nodejs-http-proxy - A full-featured http
proxy for node.js
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org