[Bug 1635422] Review Request: arc-kde - Port of the popular GTK theme Arc for the Plasma 5 desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1635422 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jerry James --- I will take this review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1635422] Review Request: arc-kde - Port of the popular GTK theme Arc for the Plasma 5 desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1635422
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- A number of files named metadata.desktop are installed. These do appear to
be regular desktop files, so should probably be checked with
desktop-file-validate.
- Regarding licenses:
o wallpapers/Arc/LICENSE: Looks to be CC-BY-SA
o wallpapers/Arc-Dark/LICENSE: Ditto
Neither of those LICENSE files is installed with the wallpapers subpackage.
Also, the CC-BY-SA license tag apparently refers to version 3.0, but this
license is 4.0. It may be necessary to inquire on fedora-legal-list whether
CC-BY-SA also applies to 4.0, or whether a new tag is needed.
- Also, the main LICENSE file only appears in the main package, but the other
subpackages do not require the main package, so it is possible to install
some and not get the LICENSE file installed.
- See the comment below about owning directories that are already owned by
other packages. Is that correct, or should contents of those directories be
owned, rather than the directories themselves?
= 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "CC by-sa (v4.0)", "Unknown or generated",
"*No copyright* CC by-sa (v4.0)". 363 files have unknown license.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/color-schemes
(plasma-desktop), /usr/share/konsole(konsole5-part),
/usr/share/wallpapers(desktop-backgrounds-basic, kde-filesystem),
/usr/share/plasma/desktoptheme(kf5-plasma, f26-backgrounds-kde, f28
-backgrounds-kde, f25-backgrounds-kde, f27-backgrounds-kde, plasma-
desktop), /usr/share/yakuake(yakuake), /usr/share/plasma/look-and-feel
(plasma-workspace), /usr/share/plasma(f27-backgrounds-kde, f26
-backgrounds-kde, kf5-plasma, f28-backgrounds-kde, f25-backgrounds-
kde), /usr/share/konversation(konversation),
/usr/share/konversation/themes(konversation),
/usr/share/yakuake/skins(yakuake)
[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]: 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 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: 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]: 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,
[Bug 1637269] Review Request: 4ti2 - Algebraic, geometric and combinatorial problems on linear spaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1637269 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James --- Thank you for the review, Robert-André! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1632851] Review Request: Pencil2D - create animation using both bitmap and vector graphics
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1632851 --- Comment #7 from Luis Segundo --- the files has been updated. Can you see below the koji Results https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=30153857 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1637124] Review Request: intel-gmmlib - Intel Graphics Memory Management Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1637124 leigh scott changed: What|Removed |Added CC||leigh123li...@googlemail.co ||m Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from leigh scott --- Approved Package Review == Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: === - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/CachePolicy/GmmGen10CachePolicy.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/CachePolicy/GmmGen11CachePolicy.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/CachePolicy/GmmGen8CachePolicy.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/CachePolicy/GmmGen9CachePolicy.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/Platform/GmmPlatforms.h intel- gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/Texture/GmmTexture.h intel- gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/Utility/GmmUtility.h intel- gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/inc/External/Common/CachePolicy/GmmCachePolicyGen10.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/inc/External/Common/CachePolicy/GmmCachePolicyGen11.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/inc/External/Common/CachePolicy/GmmCachePolicyGen8.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/inc/External/Common/CachePolicy/GmmCachePolicyGen9.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/inc/External/Common/GmmCachePolicy.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/inc/External/Common/GmmCachePolicyCommon.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/inc/External/Common/GmmCachePolicyExt.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/inc/External/Common/GmmClientContext.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/inc/External/Common/GmmCommonExt.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/inc/External/Common/GmmFormatTable.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/inc/External/Common/GmmInfo.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/inc/External/Common/GmmInfoExt.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/inc/External/Common/GmmLibDll.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/inc/External/Common/GmmPlatformExt.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/inc/External/Common/GmmResourceFlags.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/inc/External/Common/GmmResourceInfo.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/inc/External/Common/GmmResourceInfoCommon.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/inc/External/Common/GmmResourceInfoExt.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/inc/External/Common/GmmTextureExt.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/inc/External/Linux/GmmResourceInfoLin.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/inc/Internal/Common/Platform/GmmGen10Platform.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/inc/Internal/Common/Platform/GmmGen11Platform.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/inc/Internal/Common/Platform/GmmGen8Platform.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/inc/Internal/Common/Platform/GmmGen9Platform.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource : /usr/src/debug/intel- gmmlib-18.3.0-1.fc30.x86_64/Source/GmmLib/inc/Internal/Common/Texture/GmmGen10TextureCalc.h intel-gmmlib-debugsource :
[Bug 1637124] Review Request: intel-gmmlib - Intel Graphics Memory Management Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1637124 leigh scott changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|leigh123li...@googlemail.co ||m -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1591910] Review Request: blis - BLAS-like Library Instantiation Software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #16 from Antonio Trande --- >> What i wish prevent is conflict among BLAS packages. >> Do you think it's out discussion with BLIS? > > I'm not sure what "out discussion" means. Maybe it's relevant to Orion's > comments. I meant that maybe i was wrong to expect a conflict between BLIS and other BLAS libraries. I don't have any reason to block this review still. 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1591910] Review Request: blis - BLAS-like Library Instantiation Software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910 --- Comment #17 from Dave Love --- Thanks. I wonder if there's any chance of rationalizing the linear algebra library situation... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1591910] Review Request: blis - BLAS-like Library Instantiation Software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910 --- Comment #18 from Orion Poplawski --- Sure - just needs someone to do the heavy lifting... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1591910] Review Request: blis - BLAS-like Library Instantiation Software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910 --- Comment #19 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/blis -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1613573] Review Request: dsymbol - Symbol lookup support for libdparse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1613573 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- dsymbol-0.4.3-2.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-97b547bac8 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1613573] Review Request: dsymbol - Symbol lookup support for libdparse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1613573 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dsymbol -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1613571] Review Request: containers - Efficient library to use collection in D
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1613571 --- Comment #7 from MERCIER Jonathan --- Dear Neal, I have a good news. The package is available on f29 soon. Currently, the package is in testing. you should be able to request the testing package with bodhi: bodhi overrides save containers-0.8.0-2.alpha.9.fc29 Package detail: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=27669 Best regards -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1637124] Review Request: intel-gmmlib - Intel Graphics Memory Management Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1637124 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/intel-gmmlib -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1613571] Review Request: containers - Efficient library to use collection in D
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1613571 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- containers-0.8.0-3.alpha.9.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-2f24a84296 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1613571] Review Request: containers - Efficient library to use collection in D
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1613571 MERCIER Jonathan changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(bioinfornatics@gm | |ail.com)| --- Comment #9 from MERCIER Jonathan --- Command fix: bodhi overrides save containers-0.8.0-3.alpha.9.fc29 koji wait-repo f29-build --build=containers-0.8.0-3.alpha.9.fc29 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1613572] Review Request: libdparse - Library for lexing and parsing D source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1613572 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libdparse -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1613572] Review Request: libdparse - Library for lexing and parsing D source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1613572 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- libdparse-0.9.9-2.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-c0b4de3712 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1634912] Review Request: redfish-finder - Redfish enabled BMC configuration service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1634912 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- redfish-finder-0.1-3.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-ab76457ad4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1438659] Review Request: astroid - A graphical threads-with-tags style fast email client for notmuch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438659
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #13 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- You' re missing BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils to use
desktop-file-validate
- Install the two COPYING file with %license in %files
- Install ui/icons/LICENSE with %license in %files
- Add OFL to the License fields for the font "Credits: The font is Exo 2,
licensed under a SIL Open Font License:
https://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/exo-2;
- Add a comment explaining the license breakdown.
- The version in your %changelog entry is not the right one:
astroid.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.13-1 ['0.14-1.fc30',
'0.14-1']
- %{_usr} → %{_prefix}
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License Creative Commons
Attribution Public License (v4.0) GPL (v3 or later)", "GNU Lesser
General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v3) GNU Lesser General
Public License (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 209 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/astroid/review-astroid/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[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]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package 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
[Bug 1631988] Review Request: s3fs-fuse - FUSE-based file system backed by Amazon S3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1631988 Julio Gonzalez Gil changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2018-10-09 13:19:20 --- Comment #35 from Julio Gonzalez Gil --- So it seems fuse was needed for the users to mount the bucket via systemd, mount (with/without /etc/fstab entry). https://github.com/juliogonzalez/s3fs-fuse-rpm/issues/9 I will open a new bug for this, and will fix it separately. Closing this one. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1575257] Review Request: llbuild - A low-level build system, used by Xcode 9 and the Swift Package Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1575257 Sascha Peilicke changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(sascha@peilicke.d | |e) | --- Comment #5 from Sascha Peilicke --- Maybe, but let's not bikeshed. I'd much prefer to get the git repository up and running. I can then try the macro again. I didn't expect contributing takes so much patience. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1637269] Review Request: 4ti2 - Algebraic, geometric and combinatorial problems on linear spaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1637269
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[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.
[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.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
Note: Macros in: 4ti2 (description)
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 419840 bytes in 5 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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
4ti2-devel , 4ti2-libs , 4ti2-debuginfo , 4ti2-debugsource
[?]: 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
[Bug 1613573] Review Request: dsymbol - Symbol lookup support for libdparse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1613573 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- dsymbol-0.4.3-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-97b547bac8 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1613572] Review Request: libdparse - Library for lexing and parsing D source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1613572 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- libdparse-0.9.9-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-c0b4de3712 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1613571] Review Request: containers - Efficient library to use collection in D
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1613571 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- containers-0.8.0-3.alpha.9.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-2f24a84296 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
