[Bug 1735762] Review Request: fctxpd - This daemon adds FC network intelligence in host and host intelligence in FC network

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1735762



--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System  ---
fctxpd-0.1-1.20190813gitc195e67.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-513373fe60

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1754893] Review Request: materia-gtk-theme - Material Design theme for GNOME/GTK based desktop environments

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754893

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2019-10-01 03:53:20



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
materia-gtk-theme-0.0.20190912-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1752139] Review Request: ucblogo - logo programming language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752139



--- Comment #13 from Josh Cogliati  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #12)
>  - Your doc subpackage should be noarch:

The doc subpackage is now noarch.

> %package doc
> Summary: Documentation for ucblogo
> Requires:   %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
> BuildArch:  noarch
> 
> %description doc
> This package includes HTML and PDF documentation for ucblogo
> and the Program Logic Manual (plm)
> 
>  - Notify upstream about the obsoletes FSF address:
> 
> ucblogo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/ucblogo/README
> ucblogo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/ucblogo/gpl

Upstream will switch to GPL 3 with the next release and fix the addresses.

>  - Don't mix tabs and spaces, convert everything to spaces or tabs:
> 
> ucblogo.src:7: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 7, tab: line 1)
> 
Switched  to all spaces.

So besides the fsf address, these are fixed.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1750179] Review Request: git-remote-gcrypt - GNU Privacy Guard-encrypted git remote

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750179



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
git-remote-gcrypt-1.2-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2019-820dc59315

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1757166] Review Request: gedit-plugin-editorconfig - EditorConfig plugin for Gedit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757166



--- Comment #3 from "FeRD" (Frank Dana)  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2)
>  - Use:
> 
> Source0:   
> https://github.com/editorconfig/editorconfig-gedit/archive/v%{version}/
> editorconfig-gedit-%{version}.tar.gz
> 

Done.

>  - Build fails:
> 
> + %py_byte_compile /usr/bin/python3
> /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/gedit-plugin-editorconfig-0.5.3-1.fc32.x86_64/usr/
> lib64/gedit/plugins/editorconfig_plugin
> /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.2QX1tx: line 43: fg: no job control
> 
>  I believe you need to BR python3-devel to use this macro:
> 
> BuildRequires:  python%{python3_pkgversion}-devel

Whoops, duh. Fixed.

>  - Own this dir by removing the *:
> 
> %{_libdir}/gedit/plugins/editorconfig_plugin/__pycache__/

Ah, it seems I misread
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_byte_compiling
... fixed.


Specfile and .srpm both updated at links provided in original request. All
items addressed. (And tested in mock this time, so I know it actually builds.
O:) )

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1757256] New: Review Request: vim-airline - Lean & mean status/tabline for vim that's light as air

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757256

Bug ID: 1757256
   Summary: Review Request: vim-airline - Lean & mean
status/tabline for vim that's light as air
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ego.corda...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/vim-airline/fedora-31-x86_64/01043012-vim-airline/vim-airline.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/vim-airline/fedora-31-x86_64/01043012-vim-airline/vim-airline-0.10-1.20190911git89d1d43.fc31.src.rpm

Description:
Lean & mean status/tabline for vim that's light as air.

Fedora Account System Username: atim

Working COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/atim/vim-airline

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1750179] Review Request: git-remote-gcrypt - GNU Privacy Guard-encrypted git remote

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750179

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
git-remote-gcrypt-1.2-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-30deef4773

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756899] Review Request: upt - Universal Packaging Tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756899



--- Comment #3 from J. Scheurich  ---
 - Why did you mark this as Invalid? AFAIK the packager did not include extra
license files.

[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.


Sorry, error 8-(

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756501] Review Request: wf-shell - GTK3-based panel for wayfire

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756501
Bug 1756501 depends on bug 1756506, which changed state.

Bug 1756506 Summary: Review Request: gtk-layer-shell - Library to create 
components for Wayland using the Layer Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756506

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|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
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756506] Review Request: gtk-layer-shell - Library to create components for Wayland using the Layer Shell

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756506

Artem  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2019-09-30 22:05:25



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1757225] Review Request: awesome-vim-colorschemes - Collection of color schemes for Neo/vim, merged for quick use

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757225



--- Comment #1 from Artem  ---
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/awesome-vim-colorschemes/fedora-31-x86_64/01042943-awesome-vim-colorschemes/awesome-vim-colorschemes.spec
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/awesome-vim-colorschemes/fedora-31-x86_64/01042943-awesome-vim-colorschemes/awesome-vim-colorschemes-0-4.20190921git21f5c63.fc31.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
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756494] Review Request: wayfire - 3D wayland compositor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756494



--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wayfire

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756501] Review Request: wf-shell - GTK3-based panel for wayfire

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756501



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wf-shell

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756504] Review Request: wayfire-config-manager - Wayfire Config Manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756504



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1757225] New: Review Request: awesome-vim-colorschemes - Collection of color schemes for Neo/vim, merged for quick use

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757225

Bug ID: 1757225
   Summary: Review Request: awesome-vim-colorschemes - Collection
of color schemes for Neo/vim, merged for quick use
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ego.corda...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/awesome-vim-colorschemes/fedora-31-x86_64/01042922-awesome-vim-colorschemes/awesome-vim-colorschemes.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/awesome-vim-colorschemes/fedora-31-x86_64/01042922-awesome-vim-colorschemes/awesome-vim-colorschemes-0-3.20190921git21f5c63.fc31.src.rpm

Description:
Collection of awesome color schemes for Neo/vim, merged for quick use.


Fedora Account System Username: atim

Working COPR:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/atim/awesome-vim-colorschemes

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756506] Review Request: gtk-layer-shell - Library to create components for Wayland using the Layer Shell

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756506



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756496] Review Request: wf-config - Library for managing configuration files, written for wayfire

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756496



--- Comment #2 from Artem  ---
https://github.com/WayfireWM/wf-config/issues/12

https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/wayfire/fedora-31-x86_64/01042916-wf-config/wf-config.spec
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/wayfire/fedora-31-x86_64/01042916-wf-config/wf-config-0.1-3.20190904gite8d57d1.fc31.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
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756582] Review Request: sshguard - Protect hosts from brute-force attacks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756582

Christopher Engelhard  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(c...@lcts.de)   |



--- Comment #11 from Christopher Engelhard  ---
Thanks for sniffing around for fnv/simclist, also for setting FE-NEEDSPONSOR, I
forgot that.

I've added fnv & simclist as bundled provides.

spec:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lcts/sshguard/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01042870-sshguard/sshguard.spec
diff 2.4.0-8 -> 2.4.0-9:
https://gitlab.com/lcts-rpm/sshguard/compare/sshguard-2.4.0-8...sshguard-2.4.0-9
src.rpm:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lcts/sshguard/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01042870-sshguard/sshguard-2.4.0-9.fc32.src.rpm

fnv: sshguard doesn't bundle the entire library, only one specific 32bit hash
function. Is it still OK to use bundled(fnv)? 

simclist: The 1.6 version of simclist most likely comes from the author's page
on sourceforge [1], it was released in 2011, so similarly ancient. I'll contact
the dev to verify.

[1] http://freshmeat.sourceforge.net/projects/simclist

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1754684] Review Request: python-shamir-mnemonic - Reference implementation of SLIP-0039: Shamir’s Secret-Sharing for Mnemonic Codes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754684

Jonny Heggheim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
   Assignee|zebo...@gmail.com   |heg...@gmail.com
Last Closed||2019-09-30 20:51:48



--- Comment #5 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
Imported the package to f30, f31 and rawhide

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756907] Review Request: python-upt-pypi

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756907



--- Comment #4 from Jeremy Bertozzi  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
>  - You're missing the Python provide macro. See
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/
> #_the_python_provide_macro
> 
> %package -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{srcname}
> Summary:  PyPI front-end for upt
> %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}}

Thanks, fixed!

Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/master/python-upt-pypi.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/raw/master/SRPMS/python-upt-pypi-0.4-1.fc30.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
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756907] Review Request: python-upt-pypi

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756907



--- Comment #3 from Jeremy Bertozzi  ---
(In reply to Ege Güneş from comment #2)
> This is a informal review, I'm not in packagers group.
> 
> 
> Issues:
> ===
> - There are installation errors (see below).
> - The package has tests, run them in `%check`.
> - You defined `Summary` twice.
> - I think you should move `%description` and `%package` sections under
> `Requires`.


- Install fails because upt is not available (I explicitly added the Requires
tag, thanks to your comment, even if the Python dependency generator did its
job)
- The tests will also fail as it also upt. I have added some conditional tests
in my SPECs (to disable them until all dependencies are in Fedora
repositories).
- Defined twice because of sub-package for python3, not sure if I could remove
it (see the example from the guideline [1])
- Correct, I modified all my SPEC to have something more coherent

Thank you for your time!


[1]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_example_python_spec_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
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1741636] Review Request: ocsinventory-agent - The client for OCS Inventory Server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741636

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
LGTM, 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1741636] Review Request: ocsinventory-agent - The client for OCS Inventory Server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741636



--- Comment #5 from Pat Riehecky  ---
I've tossed a new build in copr with the suggested changes :
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jcpunk/ocsinventory-review/package/ocsinventory-agent/

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1754684] Review Request: python-shamir-mnemonic - Reference implementation of SLIP-0039: Shamir’s Secret-Sharing for Mnemonic Codes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754684



--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-shamir-mnemonic

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1757166] Review Request: gedit-plugin-editorconfig - EditorConfig plugin for Gedit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757166

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Use:

Source0:   
https://github.com/editorconfig/editorconfig-gedit/archive/v%{version}/editorconfig-gedit-%{version}.tar.gz

 - Build fails:

+ %py_byte_compile /usr/bin/python3
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/gedit-plugin-editorconfig-0.5.3-1.fc32.x86_64/usr/lib64/gedit/plugins/editorconfig_plugin
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.2QX1tx: line 43: fg: no job control

 I believe you need to BR python3-devel to use this macro:

BuildRequires:  python%{python3_pkgversion}-devel

 - Own this dir by removing the *:

%{_libdir}/gedit/plugins/editorconfig_plugin/__pycache__/



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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License",
 "Python Software Foundation License version 2", "*No copyright* Python
 Software Foundation License". 39 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gedit-plugin-
 editorconfig/review-gedit-plugin-editorconfig/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of
 /usr/lib64/gedit/plugins/editorconfig_plugin/__pycache__
[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.
[-]: 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
 packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
 versioned package exists. 

[Bug 1756494] Review Request: wayfire - 3D wayland compositor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756494

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Package is 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756494] Review Request: wayfire - 3D wayland compositor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756494



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
> I just wanted somehow ship out of box at least example of config file like 
> this one.

If it is an example, maybe include it with %doc instead?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1741636] Review Request: ocsinventory-agent - The client for OCS Inventory Server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741636



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
>>  - use perl not %{__perl}
>
>The snippet that generates "perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.3)" is using %{__perl} 
>and I thought the %{__perl} macro was best practices based on the snippet


Snippet is not up to date, current perl maintainers recommends using perl
directly. Macros starting with %{__ are supposedly for rpm private use.

Speaking of best practices:

%build
%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
make %{?_smp_mflags}


%install
make pure_install PERL_INSTALL_ROOT=%{buildroot}
find %{buildroot} -type f -name .packlist -exec rm -f {} ';'
find %{buildroot} -type d -depth -exec rmdir {} 2>/dev/null ';'

chmod -R u+rwX,go+rX,go-w %{buildroot}/*

→ Use instead:

%build
/usr/bin/perl Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor OPTIMIZE="%{optflags}"
NO_PACKLIST=1 NO_PERLLOCAL=1
%{make_build}


%install
%{make_install}
find %{buildroot} -type f -name '*.bs' -size 0 -delete
%{_fixperms} %{buildroot}/*

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1754684] Review Request: python-shamir-mnemonic - Reference implementation of SLIP-0039: Shamir’s Secret-Sharing for Mnemonic Codes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754684

Jonny Heggheim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|heg...@gmail.com|zebo...@gmail.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
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756582] Review Request: sshguard - Protect hosts from brute-force attacks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756582

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
  Flags|needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com |
   |)   |



--- Comment #9 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Sorry I don't know why DEADREVIEW was copied from the duplicate.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1757166] Review Request: gedit-plugin-editorconfig - EditorConfig plugin for Gedit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757166



--- Comment #1 from "FeRD" (Frank Dana)  ---
Note: The package is an ARCH package — despite not having any binary
components, and with '%global debug_package %{nil}' set in the spec file —
because, as I explain in the comments at the top of the .spec, the plugin is
installed into the GEdit plugin dir, which is in the arch-dependent libdir.

It also 'Requires: gedit%{_isa}' for the same reason.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1757166] New: Review Request: gedit-plugin-editorconfig - EditorConfig plugin for Gedit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757166

Bug ID: 1757166
   Summary: Review Request: gedit-plugin-editorconfig -
EditorConfig plugin for Gedit
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ferd...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://ferdnyc.fedorapeople.org/packaging/gedit-plugin-editorconfig.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ferdnyc.fedorapeople.org/packaging/gedit-plugin-editorconfig-0.5.3-1.fc30.src.rpm
Description: 
EditorConfig helps maintain consistent coding styles for multiple developers
working on the same project across various editors and IDEs. The EditorConfig
project consists of a file format for defining coding styles and a collection
of
text editor plugins that enable editors to read the file format and adhere to
defined styles. EditorConfig files are easily readable and they work nicely
with
version control systems.

This package contains the EditorConfig plugin for GEdit.

Fedora Account System Username: ferdnyc

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1754957] Review Request: lua-luv - lua bindings for libuv

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754957

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #12 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Valid shorthand for Apache 2:0 is ASL 2.0:

License:ASL 2.0

 - Typo: required: in %description devel and  %description -n lua5.1-luv-devel

%description devel
Files required for lua-luv development

 - Typo: Hopefully in %description and %description -n lua5.1-luv

The best docs currently are the libuv docs themselves. Hopefully
soon we'll have a copy locally tailored for lua.


 - Source is 404:

Getting https://github.com/luvit/luv/archive/1.30.1/luv-1.30.1-0.tar.gz to
./luv-1.30.1-0.tar.gz
  % Total% Received % Xferd  Average Speed   TimeTime Time  Current
 Dload  Upload   Total   SpentLeft  Speed
100   1300   1300 0185  0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:--   184
  0 00 00 0  0  0 --:--:--  0:00:01 --:--:-- 0
curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found

 Seems you should include an extraver variable for the version number after the
- in https://github.com/luvit/luv/releases

%global extraver 1

[…]

Name:   lua-luv
Version:1.30.1
Release:3.%{extraver}%{?dist}

[…]

Source0:   
https://github.com/luvit/luv/archive/%{version}-%{extraver}/luv-%{version}-%{extraver}.tar.gz

[…]

%autosetup -p1 -n luv-%{version}-%{extraver}

[…]

%changelog
* Mon Sep 30 2019 Andreas Schneider  - 1.30.1-3.1
- Fixed BR for lua 5.3

 - Devel subpackages should probably requires their main packages counterpart
and drop the doc/license from %files

%package devel
Summary:Development files for lua-luv
Requires:   %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

[…]

%package -n lua5.1-luv-devel
Summary:Development files for lua5.1-luv
Requires:   lua5.1-luv%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

[…]

%files devel
%dir %{lua_53_incdir}/luv/
%{lua_53_incdir}/luv/lhandle.h
%{lua_53_incdir}/luv/lreq.h
%{lua_53_incdir}/luv/luv.h
%{lua_53_incdir}/luv/util.h

[…]

%files -n lua5.1-luv-devel
%dir %{lua_51_incdir}/luv/
%{lua_51_incdir}/luv/lhandle.h
%{lua_51_incdir}/luv/lreq.h
%{lua_51_incdir}/luv/luv.h
%{lua_51_incdir}/luv/util.h

 - Patch application fails on latest version:

+ cd luv-1.30.1-1
+ /usr/bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w .
+ /usr/bin/cat /builddir/build/SOURCES/luv-1.30-include_lua_header.patch
+ /usr/bin/patch -p1 -s --fuzz=0 --no-backup-if-mismatch
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/luv.c.rej
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.zcFESt (%prep)

 It is already included and thus needs to be dropped.


 - missing -m flag:

install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}%{lua_53_incdir}/luv

 - Use "install -p" to keep timestamp


# lua-5.3
install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}%{lua_53_libdir}
install -pm 0755 %{lua_53_builddir}/luv.so %{buildroot}%{lua_53_libdir}/luv.so

install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}%{lua_53_incdir}/luv
for f in lhandle.h lreq.h luv.h util.h; do
install -pm 0644 src/$f %{buildroot}%{lua_53_incdir}/luv/$f
done

# lua-5.1
install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}%{lua_51_libdir}
install -pm 0755 %{lua_51_builddir}/luv.so %{buildroot}%{lua_51_libdir}/luv.so

install -d 0755 %{buildroot}%{lua_51_incdir}/luv
for f in lhandle.h lreq.h luv.h util.h; do
install -pm 0644 src/$f %{buildroot}%{lua_51_incdir}/luv/$f
done




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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)",
 "Apache License (v2.0)". 61 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/lua-luv/review-
 lua-luv/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 

[Bug 1750938] Review Request: rust-failure-tools - Various tools to be used in conjunction with the 'failure' crate

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750938

Artem  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2019-09-30 17:29:15



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756582] Review Request: sshguard - Protect hosts from brute-force attacks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756582



--- Comment #8 from Conrad Meyer  ---
(In reply to Michal Schorm from comment #7)
> I belive this BZ doesn't deserve "FE-DEADREVIEW" status since it is days old
> and actively worked on.
> Haven't you meant different BZ?
> I did set the "FE-NEEDSPONSOR" as the reporter stated that he is looking for
> a sponsor.
> --
> I removed the "FE-DEADREVIEW" flag.
> If you set it intentionaly to this BZ, please provide further explanation.
> Thank you

Hi Michal,

I believe DEADREVIEW was accidentally copied from the duplicate bug (my
original submission from 2015 that languished without reviewers for years). 
Clearing it on this one is correct.

Thanks Michal and Christopher for taking this on.

Best,
Conrad

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1755084] Review Request: smbcmp - SMB network trace debugging tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1755084



--- Comment #9 from Andreas Schneider  ---
Requires:   wireshark

tshark is part of wireshark-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
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1755084] Review Request: smbcmp - SMB network trace debugging tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1755084



--- Comment #8 from Andreas Schneider  ---
Günther, you have to bump the release version and add changelog entries for
what you change. Then post a new spec and srpm urls in the format like in the
description :-)

Source0 should be:
https://github.com/smbcmp/smbcmp/archive/v0.1/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756899] Review Request: upt - Universal Packaging Tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756899

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
@J. Scheurich:

(In reply to J. Scheurich from comment #1)
> This is only a informal review, i am not in the packager group 8-(
> 
> $ fedora-review -n upt
> INFO: Processing local files: upt
> ...
> INFO: Build completed
> INFO: Installing built package(s)
> INFO: Install command returned error code 30
> 
> $ more /home/mufti/review-upt/review.txt
> ...
> ERROR: Command failed:
>  # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/
> --releasever 32 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local
> --disableplugin=spacewalk install
> /home/mufti/review-upt/resultsupt-0.10.3-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
> --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
> 
> 
Search for errors in root.log to see why the installation has failed (probably
missing python-spdx-lookup)

 - This should be marked as okay:

[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
 Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should

 - Why did you mark this as Invalid? AFAIK the packager did not include extra
license files.

[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 provide egg info.


Also I sent you a new mail regarding sponsorship, please reply to it (it may be
stuck in SPAM).



(In reply to Jeremy Bertozzi from comment #0)
> Spec URL:
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/master/upt.spec
> SRPM URL:
> https://github.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/raw/master/SRPMS/upt-0.10.3-1.
> fc30.src.rpm
> 
> Description: A unified CLI tool that converts a package from a
> language-specific package manager (such as PyPI or NPM) to an almost
> ready-to-use package for Free Unix-based operating systems (such as a
> GNU/Linux distribution or *BSD).
> 
> FAS username: jbertozzi
> 
> I am looking for a sponsor for this package, and its dependencies.

Based on J. Scheurich review, I approve this package. You still need to find a
sponsor, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756907] Review Request: python-upt-pypi

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756907

Ege Güneş  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||egegu...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Ege Güneş  ---
This is a informal review, I'm not in packagers group.


Issues:
===
- There are installation errors (see below).
- The package has tests, run them in `%check`.
- You defined `Summary` twice.
- I think you should move `%description` and `%package` sections under
`Requires`.


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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
 License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License",
 "Eclipse Public License (v1.0) Common Development and Distribution
 License (v1.0) Boost Software License (v1.0) Aladdin Free Public
 License CeCILL-B License GNU Affero General Public License (v3)",
 "Apache License". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/egegunes/1756907-python-upt-
 pypi/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).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[?]: 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 2 files.
[ ]: 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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
 packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
 versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
 use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= 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 

[Bug 1756908] Review Request: python-upt-rubygems

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756908

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - You're missing the Python provide macro. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_python_provide_macro

%package -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{srcname}
Summary:RubyGems front-end for upt
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}}


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756907] Review Request: python-upt-pypi

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756907

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - You're missing the Python provide macro. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_python_provide_macro

%package -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{srcname}
Summary:PyPI front-end for upt
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}}


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756906] Review Request: python-upt-fedora

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756906

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - You're missing the Python provide macro. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_python_provide_macro

%package -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{srcname}
Summary:Fedora backend for upt
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}}


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756905] Review Request: python-spdx-lookup

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756905

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---

 - You're missing the Python provide macro. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_python_provide_macro

%package -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{srcname}
Summary:SPDX license list query tool
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}}


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756901] Review Request: python-spdx

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756901



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - %build
ls

What is this ls doing here?

 - You're missing the Python provide macro. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_python_provide_macro

%package -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{srcname}
Summary:SPDX license list database
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}}

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1755084] Review Request: smbcmp - SMB network trace debugging tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1755084

Guenther Deschner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(gdeschner@redhat. |
   |com)|



--- Comment #7 from Guenther Deschner  ---
All things mentioned have been addressed. Can you recheck? Files on the same
location as above.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756901] Review Request: python-spdx

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756901

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756494] Review Request: wayfire - 3D wayland compositor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756494



--- Comment #3 from Artem  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2)
> install -Dpm0644 wayfire.ini.default   
> %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/xdg/%{name}.ini.default
> 
>  - Are you sure this is supposed to go there? Shouldn't this be marked as
> config(noreplace)?

Not sure should we ship this config at all since it broken, but upstream said
that very soon new 0.3 will be available and should fix issue with new wlroots.
I just wanted somehow ship out of box at least example of config file like 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756504] Review Request: wayfire-config-manager - Wayfire Config Manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756504

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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 64 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/wayfire-config-manager/review-wayfire-
 config-manager/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.
[-]: 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 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]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
 publishes signatures.
 Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for 

[Bug 1756501] Review Request: wf-shell - GTK3-based panel for wayfire

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756501

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Split the description to stay below 80 characters per line:

wf-shell.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C fully functional DE based
around wayfire. Currently it has only a GTK-based panel



Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import.


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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "NTP License (legal
 disclaimer)". 50 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/wf-shell/review-wf-
 shell/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.
[-]: 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with 

[Bug 1756331] Review Request: tmt - Test Metadata Tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756331

Petr Šplíchal  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2019-09-30 15:32:13



--- Comment #10 from Petr Šplíchal  ---
Package has been built successfully, closing.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1392637

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1741805] Review Request: lolcat - a colorful version of 'cat'

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741805

josef radinger  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2019-09-30 15:31:02



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756506] Review Request: gtk-layer-shell - Library to create components for Wayland using the Layer Shell

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756506

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]: 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.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat
 License", "NTP License (legal disclaimer)". 39 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/gtk-layer-shell/review-gtk-layer-
 shell/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are 

[Bug 1755870] Review Request: perl-Test-Deep-Fuzzy - Fuzzy number comparison with Test::Deep

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1755870

Yanko Kaneti  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2019-09-30 15:17:58



--- Comment #5 from Yanko Kaneti  ---
Thanks. Fixed the spec some more after import. Built in rawhide

As to why have this package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757117

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1757117] New: Review Request: perl-TOML-Parser - Simple toml parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757117

Bug ID: 1757117
   Summary: Review Request: perl-TOML-Parser - Simple toml parser
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: yan...@declera.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/perl-TOML-Parser/perl-TOML-Parser.spec
SRPM URL:
http://declera.com/~yaneti/perl-TOML-Parser/perl-TOML-Parser-0.91-1.fc32.src.rpm
Description: Simple toml parser
Fedora Account System Username: yaneti

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756506] Review Request: gtk-layer-shell - Library to create components for Wayland using the Layer Shell

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756506

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1756501




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756501
[Bug 1756501] Review Request: wf-shell - GTK3-based panel for wayfire
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756501] Review Request: wf-shell - GTK3-based panel for wayfire

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756501

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
 Depends On||1756506




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756506
[Bug 1756506] Review Request: gtk-layer-shell - Library to create components
for Wayland using the Layer Shell
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756494] Review Request: wayfire - 3D wayland compositor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756494

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
install -Dpm0644 wayfire.ini.default   
%{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/xdg/%{name}.ini.default

 - Are you sure this is supposed to go there? Shouldn't this be marked as
config(noreplace)?



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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "NTP License (legal
 disclaimer)". 179 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/wayfire/review-
 wayfire/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.
[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 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 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in wayfire-
 devel
[?]: Package functions as described.

[Bug 1756582] Review Request: sshguard - Protect hosts from brute-force attacks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756582

Michal Schorm  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
 Blocks|201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW)  |
  Flags||needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com
   ||)



--- Comment #7 from Michal Schorm  ---
Hello Robert-André Mauchin.
I belive this BZ doesn't deserve "FE-DEADREVIEW" status since it is days old
and actively worked on.
Haven't you meant different BZ?
I did set the "FE-NEEDSPONSOR" as the reporter stated that he is looking for a
sponsor.
--
I removed the "FE-DEADREVIEW" flag.
If you set it intentionaly to this BZ, please provide further explanation.
Thank you


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449
[Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response
should be blocking this bug.
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1741636] Review Request: ocsinventory-agent - The client for OCS Inventory Server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741636



--- Comment #3 from Pat Riehecky  ---
monitor-edid is now within the release.  I believe this package is viable now.

Pat

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1755870] Review Request: perl-Test-Deep-Fuzzy - Fuzzy number comparison with Test::Deep

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1755870



--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test-Deep-Fuzzy

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1750938] Review Request: rust-failure-tools - Various tools to be used in conjunction with the 'failure' crate

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750938



--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-failure-tools

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756496] Review Request: wf-config - Library for managing configuration files, written for wayfire

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756496

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - This library has no soname version, which is not okay in Fedora:

In cases where upstream ships unversioned .so library (so this is not needed
for plugins, drivers, etc.), the packager MUST try to convince upstream to
start versioning it.

If that fails due to unwilling or unresponsive upstream, the packager may start
versioning downstream but this must be done with caution and ideally only in
rare cases. We don’t want to create a library that could conflict with upstream
if they later start providing versioned shared libraries. Under no
circumstances should the unversioned library be shipped in Fedora.

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_downstream_so_name_versioning

 - You must install the LICENSE file with %license in %files

%files
%license LICENSE



Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/#_devel_packages


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: 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.
[!]: 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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/wf-config/review-wf-config/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]: 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]: 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.
 

[Bug 1756331] Review Request: tmt - Test Metadata Tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756331



--- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tmt

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1741805] Review Request: lolcat - a colorful version of 'cat'

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741805



--- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lolcat

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1752139] Review Request: ucblogo - logo programming language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752139



--- Comment #12 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Your doc subpackage should be noarch:

%package doc
Summary: Documentation for ucblogo
Requires:   %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
BuildArch:  noarch

%description doc
This package includes HTML and PDF documentation for ucblogo
and the Program Logic Manual (plm)

 - Notify upstream about the obsoletes FSF address:

ucblogo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/ucblogo/README
ucblogo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/ucblogo/gpl

 - Don't mix tabs and spaces, convert everything to spaces or tabs:

ucblogo.src:7: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 7, tab: line 1)



Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ucblogo
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
 address)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
 address)". 590 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ucblogo/review-
 ucblogo/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.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if
 package has .info files.
 Note: Texinfo .info file(s) in ucblogo
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
 Note: %makeinstall used in %install section
[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 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 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 is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec 

[Bug 1756582] Review Request: sshguard - Protect hosts from brute-force attacks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756582

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW)
 CC||cse.cem+redhatb...@gmail.co
   ||m



--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
*** Bug 1260845 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449
[Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response
should be blocking this bug.
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1260845] Review Request: sshguard - Protect hosts from brute-force attacks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1260845

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Last Closed||2019-09-30 14:15:37



--- Comment #29 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1756582 ***

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1752233] Review Request: mle - small, flexible, terminal-based text editor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752233

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Package approved.


You still need to find a sponsor. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group


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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)".
 93 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/mle/review-mle/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.
[-]: 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
 publishes signatures.
 Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file 

[Bug 1752158] Review Request: termbox - Legacy-free alternative to ncurses

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752158

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - You need to BR gcc:

+ waf configure --prefix=/usr --libdir=/usr/lib64 --includedir=/usr/include
Setting top to   : /builddir/build/BUILD/termbox-1.1.2 
Setting out to   :
/builddir/build/BUILD/termbox-1.1.2/build 
Checking for 'gcc' (C compiler)  : not found 
Checking for 'clang' (C compiler): not found 
Checking for 'icc' (C compiler)  : not found 
Checking for 'c_bgxlc' (C compiler)  : not found 
Checking for 'c_emscripten' (C compiler) : not found 
Checking for 'c_nec' (C compiler): not found 
could not configure a C compiler!

 - You need to set default build flags (which includes -g):

%set_build_flags
waf configure \
--prefix=%{_prefix} \
--libdir=%{_libdir} \
--includedir=%{_includedir}





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.
[!]: 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.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 18 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/termbox/review-termbox/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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 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 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]: 

[Bug 1756331] Review Request: tmt - Test Metadata Tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756331



--- Comment #8 from Petr Šplíchal  ---
Thanks for the feedback. I've updated the spec to build python3 packages only.
Warnings have been fixed as well. Waiting for the repo and branches.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1754957] Review Request: lua-luv - lua bindings for libuv

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754957



--- Comment #11 from Andreas Schneider  ---
Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/lua-luv/lua-luv.spec
SRPM URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/lua-luv/lua-luv-1.30.1-3.fc32.src.rpm

Thanks. I've fixed it.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756582] Review Request: sshguard - Protect hosts from brute-force attacks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756582



--- Comment #5 from Michal Schorm  ---
2.5)
Personally, I see as the most important having an usefull error message on a
expected and easy-to-find place.
The program provides such message, so I'm absolutelly fine with that.
I primarly wanted to find out if that's expected.

4)
> Should I open a new review request for each and link to them from here?
If you would pack them to Fedora, definitelly yes - it needs a standard new
package review.


I took a look at the libraries.
I grepped SPECfiles of all of the pcakges in Rawhide; tarball of just those
SPECs can be found here:
http://src.fedoraproject.org/repo/rpm-specs-latest.tar.xz (Mentioning just in
case you'd find it handy later in your packager life)


The 'fnv' library is packed in Fedora only as a rust version, which won't help
us much.
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-fnv
However ... as I'm strolling through the author's pages
(http://www.isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/fnv/#FNV-reference-source), I see the
latest version:
  fnv-5.0.3.tar.gz  [updated: 2012 May 20]
so it's not upated much often :)

In this case, I'd be fine with bundling it; even though it's a MUST to properly
mark it as bundled in the SPEC. With a short justification.


There is another package which bundles the 'simclist' library:
 
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pcsc-lite-acsccid/blob/master/f/pcsc-lite-acsccid.spec#_22
It's not clear from the SPEC, but in its pcakage review, the reason is stated
as purpose not strong enough to pack it as a standalone package.
UPDATE:
* I've contacted it't maintainer and ve uncovered, there's were more packages
which were missing the mention of the bundling.

Since the 'simclist' is not updated from 2010, I'm fine to bundle it too.
  http://mij.oltrelinux.com/devel/simclist/#downloadinstall
  http://mij.oltrelinux.com/devel/simclist/simclist-1.5-changes.txt
This should be reconsidered once more packages that would require it would
appear.

UPDATE:
* The latest upstream version is 1.5, however there are project on the internet
(and in Fedora and Debian too), which has version 1.6, that appeared ...
somewhere.
  Hopefully as a typo, but it may be worth deeper investigation and eventually
need to ask upstream to release a bumped version to keep the sync.

--

Mark the bundles correctly for both packages.
After that I'll re-do the review. But it looks promising now :)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1735762] Review Request: fctxpd - This daemon adds FC network intelligence in host and host intelligence in FC network

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1735762



--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2019-513373fe60 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-513373fe60

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1741805] Review Request: lolcat - a colorful version of 'cat'

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741805



--- Comment #10 from josef radinger  ---
great
sorry for the late answer, i was in hospital and afk

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756899] Review Request: upt - Universal Packaging Tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756899

J. Scheurich  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||muft...@web.de



--- Comment #1 from J. Scheurich  ---
This is only a informal review, i am not in the packager group 8-(

$ fedora-review -n upt
INFO: Processing local files: upt
...
INFO: Build completed
INFO: Installing built package(s)
INFO: Install command returned error code 30

$ more /home/mufti/review-upt/review.txt
...
ERROR: Command failed:
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/
--releasever 32 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local
--disableplugin=spacewalk install
/home/mufti/review-upt/resultsupt-0.10.3-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts



Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/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.
  Note: License file licenses.cpython-38.opt-1.pyc is not marked as
  %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 x   other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
 upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
 licenses manually.
[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
[-]: 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 30720 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
 Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
 packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
 versioned package 

[Bug 1754957] Review Request: lua-luv - lua bindings for libuv

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754957

Tomas Krizek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|tomas.kri...@nic.cz |nob...@fedoraproject.org



--- Comment #10 from Tomas Krizek  ---
I gave this a quick look, but I don't have any system with fedora-review set up
and I don't have the time to get it working right now.

I also ran into the following issue:

warning: line 16: Possible unexpanded macro in: BuildRequires:  lua >=
%{lua_version}
warning: line 17: Possible unexpanded macro in: BuildRequires:  lua-devel >=
%{lua_version}

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756582] Review Request: sshguard - Protect hosts from brute-force attacks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756582



--- Comment #4 from Christopher Engelhard  ---
Hi Michal, thanks for the review & detailed feedback.

Issues:
===
1) The package does not own '/usr/libexec/sshguard' directory
Reply: Fixed.

2) systemd vs sysvinit
2.1) Fix the condition
Reply: I swear, one day I will wtite a flawless rpm macro ...
I reverted it to checking for el6, specifically. I think the package will also
work on older RHELs, but I have never checked.
2.2) Logrotate is used only with sysvinit and not with systemd - is that an
intention?
Reply: Yes. Usually, sshguard expects to run with systemd and logs via
journald. I only have it log to a file on SysVInit.
2.3) When the package is build with systemd service instead of sysvinit script,
do you think it still worth to ship the example [...] file [...]?
Reply: You're right. I don't remember why I switched to creating my own service
file. I changed it back to using upstream's example.
2.4) Please note, that the base package contains systemd service file, but the
package does not require systemd. [...]
Reply: Fixed. It should require systemd unless run on a sysvinit system.
2.5) The systemd service contains e.g. "After=firewalld.service". If the
service is not present or not started, this won't have any effect. [...] Check
if that's OK.
Reply: I'd say it's OK, but that is debatable. The After= lines are really just
there to ensure proper ordering IF the backend is present. If people use the
backend-subpackages, the appropriate service will be pulled in as a dependency.
If they're not, they will in any case have to configure sshguard themselves,
including which backend to use, so I think it's fair to assume they'll also
install that backend, or if not, understand what went wrong.
Please advise.

3) I'd suggest to have every changelog entry (each header) separated by a
newline [...].
Reply: Fixed.

4) I saw two bundled libraries that I suspect they are bundled, can you please
confirm?
Reply: Yes, that seems to be the case, I overlooked that. I don't think they're
in Fedora, I'll package them separately if necessary and get back to you.
Should I open a new review request for each and link to them from here?


spec correcting {1-3):
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lcts/sshguard-testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01042441-sshguard/sshguard.spec
diff: https://gitlab.com/lcts-rpm/sshguard/compare/sshguard-2.4.0-8...master
src package:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lcts/sshguard-testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01042441-sshguard/sshguard-2.4.0-8.git.5.9154ef5.fc32.src.rpm

I'll make a new package release once I've taken care of (4).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756331] Review Request: tmt - Test Metadata Tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756331



--- Comment #7 from Miro Hrončok  ---
(In reply to Petr Šplíchal from comment #6)
> Thinking about it a little bit more, we could probably just go
> with Python 3. Only RHEL7 would be Python 2. What do you think?

I recommend enabling python3 in fmf and switching to Python 3 only everywhere.


--


You might also want to see this:

/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/fmf/utils.py:205
  /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/fmf/utils.py:205: DeprecationWarning:
invalid escape sequence \s
for atom in re.split("\s*,\s*", value):

/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/fmf/utils.py:240
  /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/fmf/utils.py:240: DeprecationWarning:
invalid escape sequence \s
for literal in re.split("\s*&\s*", clause):

/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/fmf/utils.py:243
  /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/fmf/utils.py:243: DeprecationWarning:
invalid escape sequence \s
matched = re.match("^(.*)\s*:\s*(.*)$", literal)

/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/fmf/utils.py:283
  /usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/fmf/utils.py:283: DeprecationWarning:
invalid escape sequence \s
for clause in re.split("\s*\|\s*", filter)])

tmt/convert.py:75
  /builddir/build/BUILD/tmt-0.1/tmt/convert.py:75: DeprecationWarning: invalid
escape sequence \s
'echo "Description:\s*(.*)"', content).group(1)

tmt/convert.py:79
  /builddir/build/BUILD/tmt-0.1/tmt/convert.py:79: DeprecationWarning: invalid
escape sequence \s
'echo "RunFor:\s*(.*)"', content).group(1)

tmt/convert.py:83
  /builddir/build/BUILD/tmt-0.1/tmt/convert.py:83: DeprecationWarning: invalid
escape sequence \s
'echo "TestTime:\s*(.*)"', content).group(1)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756899] Review Request: upt - Universal Packaging Tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756899

Jeremy Bertozzi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: Universal   |Review Request: upt -
   |Packaging Tool  |Universal Packaging Tool



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756331] Review Request: tmt - Test Metadata Tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756331



--- Comment #6 from Petr Šplíchal  ---
> > Unfortunately we still have a couple of tools in process of
> > migration to Python 3 so the Python 2 subpackage is necessary.
> > Hopefully soon we'll have everything Python 3 only and the spec
> > file will become much more simple.
>
> What tools? I don't understand why the Python 2 package is only
> needed in Fedora 29, but not Fedora 30.

python-nitrate is still on the way: BZ#1727936
But hopefully to migration will soon be finished.

> > So the %{python3_pkgversion} is not needed any more? If you see
> > anything which can be simplified I'm definitely open to make it
> > more readable.
>
> %{python3_pkgversion} is only needed for Python 3 on EPEL 6 and 7. Clearly,
> the spec is designed to not build Python 3 on EPEL 6 and 7.
> %{python3_pkgversion} is not needed in Fedora or EPEL 8.

I see, thanks for clarification.

Thinking about it a little bit more, we could probably just go
with Python 3. Only RHEL7 would be Python 2. What do you think?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1755870] Review Request: perl-Test-Deep-Fuzzy - Fuzzy number comparison with Test::Deep

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1755870

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar  ---
> TODO: There is no link from a page on the URL location to Source0. Maybe you 
> should use Source0 from Github releases, or change URL to CPAN to be 
> consistent.
-URL:https://github.com/karupanerura/Test-Deep-Fuzzy
+URL:https://metacpan.org/pod/Test::Deep::Fuzzy
We usually use a link to a CPAN release page
. Not to a documentation of a
module as you used. But this is distribution contain only one documented module
so it does not matter much.
Ok.

>TODO: Do not version perl-interpreter (perl-interpreter >= 5.008001). Use 
>'perl(:VERSION) >= 5.8.1' for that purpose. perl-interpreter has an epoch 
>number and the comparison does not work.
-BuildRequires:  perl-interpreter >= 5.008001
+BuildRequires:  perl(:VERSION) >= 5.8.1
FIX: Build-require 'perl-interpreter' (perl-Test-Deep-Fuzzy.spec:33).

> FIX: Do not build-require 'perl(Module::Build)'. It's not used anywhere.
-BuildRequires:  perl(Module::Build)
Ok.

$ rpmlint perl-Test-Deep-Fuzzy.spec
../SRPMS/perl-Test-Deep-Fuzzy-0.01-2.fc32.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Test-Deep-Fuzzy-0.01-2.fc32.noarch.rpm 
sh: /usr/bin/python2: No such file or directory
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.

$ rpm -q --requires -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Test-Deep-Fuzzy-0.01-2.fc32.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.30.0)
  1 perl(:VERSION) >= 5.8.1
  1 perl(B)
  1 perl(Exporter) >= 5.57
  1 perl(Math::Round)
  1 perl(Scalar::Util)
  1 perl(strict)
  1 perl(Test::Deep::Cmp)
  1 perl(Test::Deep::Fuzzy::Number)
  1 perl(warnings)
  1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1
Binary requires are Ok.

$ rpm -q --provides -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Test-Deep-Fuzzy-0.01-2.fc32.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c
  1 perl(Test::Deep::Fuzzy) = 0.01
  1 perl(Test::Deep::Fuzzy::Number)
  1 perl-Test-Deep-Fuzzy = 0.01-2.fc32
Binary provides are Ok.

$ resolvedeps f32-build
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Test-Deep-Fuzzy-0.01-2.fc32.noarch.rpm 
Binary dependencies are resolvable. Ok.

Please correct the 'FIX' item before building this package.
Resolution: 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756908] New: Review Request: python-upt-rubygems

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756908

Bug ID: 1756908
   Summary: Review Request: python-upt-rubygems
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jeremy.berto...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/master/python-upt-rubygems.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/raw/master/SRPMS/python-upt-rubygems-0.2-1.fc30.src.rpm

Description: Rubygems frontend for upt
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756899).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756907] New: Review Request: python-upt-pypi

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756907

Bug ID: 1756907
   Summary: Review Request: python-upt-pypi
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jeremy.berto...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/master/python-upt-pypi.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/raw/master/SRPMS/python-upt-pypi-0.4-1.fc30.src.rpm

Description: PyPI frontend for upt
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756899).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756906] New: Review Request: python-upt-fedora

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756906

Bug ID: 1756906
   Summary: Review Request: python-upt-fedora
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jeremy.berto...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



SPEC URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/master/python-upt-fedora.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/raw/master/SRPMS/python-upt-fedora-0.3-1.fc30.src.rpm

Description: Fedora backend for upt
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756899).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756905] New: Review Request: python-spdx-lookup

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756905

Bug ID: 1756905
   Summary: Review Request: python-spdx-lookup
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jeremy.berto...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



SPEC URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/master/python-spdx-lookup.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/raw/master/SRPMS/python-spdx-lookup-0.3.2-1.fc30.src.rpm


A tool to query the SPDX license list.

Dependency for upt (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756899).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756901] New: Review Request: python-spdx

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756901

Bug ID: 1756901
   Summary: Review Request: python-spdx
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jeremy.berto...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/master/python-spdx.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/raw/master/SRPMS/python-spdx-2.5.0-1.fc30.src.rpm

Python module incorporating an interface to the SPDX license database.

Dependency for upt (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756899)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756899] New: Review Request: Universal Packaging Tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756899

Bug ID: 1756899
   Summary: Review Request: Universal Packaging Tool
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jeremy.berto...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/master/upt.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/jbertozzi/copr-build-upt/raw/master/SRPMS/upt-0.10.3-1.fc30.src.rpm

Description: A unified CLI tool that converts a package from a
language-specific package manager (such as PyPI or NPM) to an almost
ready-to-use package for Free Unix-based operating systems (such as a GNU/Linux
distribution or *BSD).

FAS username: jbertozzi

I am looking for a sponsor for this package, and its dependencies.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756331] Review Request: tmt - Test Metadata Tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756331



--- Comment #5 from Miro Hrončok  ---
(In reply to Petr Šplíchal from comment #4)
> (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #2)
> > I'm surprised by the complexity of the %bcond options.
> >
> > What's the point of the Python 2 subpackage on Fedora 29?
> 
> Unfortunately we still have a couple of tools in process of
> migration to Python 3 so the Python 2 subpackage is necessary.
> Hopefully soon we'll have everything Python 3 only and the spec
> file will become much more simple.

What tools? I don't understand why the Python 2 package is only needed in
Fedora 29, but not Fedora 30.

> > What's the point of using %{python3_pkgversion} if your are not
> > shipping Python 3 subpackage in EL < 8?
> 
> So the %{python3_pkgversion} is not needed any more? If you see
> anything which can be simplified I'm definitely open to make it
> more readable.

%{python3_pkgversion} is only needed for Python 3 on EPEL 6 and 7. Clearly, the
spec is designed to not build Python 3 on EPEL 6 and 7.
%{python3_pkgversion} is not needed in Fedora or EPEL 8.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1754957] Review Request: lua-luv - lua bindings for libuv

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754957

Andreas Schneider  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||a...@scampersand.com
   Assignee|a...@scampersand.com|tomas.kri...@nic.cz



--- Comment #9 from Andreas Schneider  ---
Tomas, could you do the review?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1754957] Review Request: lua-luv - lua bindings for libuv

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754957



--- Comment #8 from Andreas Schneider  ---
Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/lua-luv/lua-luv.spec
SRPM URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/lua-luv/lua-luv-1.30.1-2.fc32.src.rpm

Rawhide build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37962558

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756331] Review Request: tmt - Test Metadata Tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756331



--- Comment #4 from Petr Šplíchal  ---
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #2)
> I'm surprised by the complexity of the %bcond options.
>
> What's the point of the Python 2 subpackage on Fedora 29?

Unfortunately we still have a couple of tools in process of
migration to Python 3 so the Python 2 subpackage is necessary.
Hopefully soon we'll have everything Python 3 only and the spec
file will become much more simple.

> What's the point of using %{python3_pkgversion} if your are not
> shipping Python 3 subpackage in EL < 8?

Well, this spec is basically an updated copy of the spec we've put
together for fmf:

https://github.com/psss/fmf/commit/2d35fe5

So the %{python3_pkgversion} is not needed any more? If you see
anything which can be simplified I'm definitely open to make it
more readable.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1756331] Review Request: tmt - Test Metadata Tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1756331



--- Comment #3 from Petr Šplíchal  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
>  - Remove hidden files in %prep:
> 
> tmt.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/tmt/examples/convert/.fmf
> tmt.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/tmt/examples/convert/.fmf
> tmt.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/tmt/examples/httpd/.fmf
> tmt.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/tmt/examples/httpd/.fmf
> tmt.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/tmt/examples/mini/.fmf
> tmt.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/tmt/examples/mini/.fmf
> tmt.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/tmt/examples/systemd/.fmf
> tmt.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/tmt/examples/systemd/.fmf

Thanks for the quick review, Robert-André. Regarding the hidden
files mentioned above: They are necessary for the examples to
work. The special ".fmf" directory is used to identify the root
of the metadata tree (similarly as ".git" does for repositories):

https://fmf.readthedocs.io/en/latest/concept.html#tree

So they need to be included in the package as well.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org