[Bug 1849294] Review Request: golang-github-vivint-infectious - Reed-Solomon forward error correcting library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849294



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-9e61d967c4 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-9e61d967c4 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-9e61d967c4

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1823376] Review Request: golang-github-gin-contrib-static - Static middleware

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823376

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-c78479a154 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-c78479a154 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c78479a154

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1849291] Review Request: golang-github-btcsuite-btcutil-base58 - API for encoding and decoding to and from the modified base58 encoding

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849291



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-c2c5705894 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-c2c5705894 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c2c5705894

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1849295] Review Request: golang-github-zeebo-errs - Package for making errors friendly and easy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849295



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-8eb02421f0 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-8eb02421f0 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-8eb02421f0

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1849301] Review Request: golang-github-zeebo-float16 - 16 bit "floats" that can store numbers like 1.02e12 for exponents in [-15, 15]

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849301



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-70bd5b4d03 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-70bd5b4d03 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-70bd5b4d03

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1838306] Review Request: golang-github-graph-gophers-graphql - GraphQL server with a focus on ease of use

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838306

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-3a3f6ac104 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-3a3f6ac104 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3a3f6ac104

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1849293] Review Request: golang-github-spacemonkeygo-monkit - Flexible process data collection, instrumentation, and tracing client library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849293



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-0564e2c1b8 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-0564e2c1b8 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-0564e2c1b8

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1849296] Review Request: golang-github-calebcase-tmpfile - Cross Platform Temporary Files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849296



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-8bc1fe7b5a has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-8bc1fe7b5a \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-8bc1fe7b5a

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1849287] Review Request: golang-github-aalpar-deheap - Doubly ended heap

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849287



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-ef56f0cdcc has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-ef56f0cdcc \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-ef56f0cdcc

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1849457] Review Request: python-aiohue - Python module to talk to Philips Hue

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849457



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-1bdf41bc87 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-1bdf41bc87 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1bdf41bc87

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1823419] Review Request: gnucobol - COBOL compiler

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823419

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2020-07-03 01:18:55



--- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-63ec62898d has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, 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 1848758] Review Request: libsoundio - C library for cross-platform real-time audio input and output

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1848758

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-64b1da05a8 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, 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 1852339] Review Request: barrier - Use a single keyboard and mouse to control multiple computers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1852339



--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin   ---
Maybe wait for upstream for SystemD integration. It needs more eyes.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1849291] Review Request: golang-github-btcsuite-btcutil-base58 - API for encoding and decoding to and from the modified base58 encoding

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849291



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-2af18e53a7 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-2af18e53a7 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-2af18e53a7

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1849294] Review Request: golang-github-vivint-infectious - Reed-Solomon forward error correcting library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849294



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-0dbf64fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-0dbf64fc10 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-0dbf64fc10

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1823381] Review Request: golang-github-gin-contrib-cors - CORS gin's middleware

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823381

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-8ffc12f360 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-8ffc12f360 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-8ffc12f360

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1849287] Review Request: golang-github-aalpar-deheap - Doubly ended heap

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849287



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-810db625aa has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-810db625aa \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-810db625aa

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1849293] Review Request: golang-github-spacemonkeygo-monkit - Flexible process data collection, instrumentation, and tracing client library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849293



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-0422142f4d has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-0422142f4d \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-0422142f4d

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1849295] Review Request: golang-github-zeebo-errs - Package for making errors friendly and easy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849295



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-a6cf3f6de0 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-a6cf3f6de0 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-a6cf3f6de0

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1849301] Review Request: golang-github-zeebo-float16 - 16 bit "floats" that can store numbers like 1.02e12 for exponents in [-15, 15]

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849301



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-07cc6c7424 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-07cc6c7424 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-07cc6c7424

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1849296] Review Request: golang-github-calebcase-tmpfile - Cross Platform Temporary Files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849296



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-e8bb15ea1b has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-e8bb15ea1b \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e8bb15ea1b

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1849457] Review Request: python-aiohue - Python module to talk to Philips Hue

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849457

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-2081091d02 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-2081091d02 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-2081091d02

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1853145] Review Request: ghc-unicode-transforms - Unicode normalization

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853145



--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen  ---
Thank you for the review

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/26797


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1853172] Review Request: ghc-js-flot - Obtain minified flot code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853172



--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen  ---
Thank you for the review

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/26796


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1853555] New: Review Request: ghc-HsOpenSSL - Partial OpenSSL binding for Haskell

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853555

Bug ID: 1853555
   Summary: Review Request: ghc-HsOpenSSL - Partial OpenSSL
binding for Haskell
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: peter...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-HsOpenSSL/ghc-HsOpenSSL.spec
SRPM URL:
https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-HsOpenSSL/ghc-HsOpenSSL-0.11.4.18-1.fc32.src.rpm

Description:
HsOpenSSL is an OpenSSL binding for Haskell. It can generate RSA and DSA keys,
read and write PEM files, generate message digests, sign and verify messages,
encrypt and decrypt messages. It has also some capabilities of creating SSL
clients and servers.

This package is in production use by a number of Haskell based systems and
stable. You may also be interested in the 'tls' package,
, which is a pure Haskell
implementation of SSL.


Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=46494922


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1853217] Review Request: ServiceReport - a tool to validate and repair system configuration for specific purposes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853217

Hanns-Joachim Uhl  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||bugpr...@us.ibm.com,
   ||d...@danny.cz,
   ||hannsj_...@de.ibm.com
Link ID||IBM Linux Technology Center
   ||186643
 Blocks||1071880 (PPCTracker)





Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1071880
[Bug 1071880] (PPCTracker) Fedora for PowerPC architectures (ppc64,ppc64le):
Bug Tracker
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1853047] Review Request: golang-github-jedib0t-pretty - Pretty print Tables and more in golang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853047

Fabian Affolter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@fabian-affolter.ch
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review?




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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 1853047] Review Request: golang-github-jedib0t-pretty - Pretty print Tables and more in golang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853047

Fabian Affolter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter  ---
Package APPROVED.


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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
 upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/fab/Documents/repos/reviews/1853047-golang-github-
 jedib0t-pretty/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com(golang-github-olivere-env-devel,
 golang-github-godoctor-devel, golang-github-mitchellh-goamz-devel,
 golang-github-ceph-devel, golang-github-alecthomas-kong-hcl-devel,
 [...]
 thinkerou-favicon-devel, golang-github-jmespath-devel, golang-github-
 alexflint-scalar-devel, golang-github-3rf-mongo-lint-devel, golang-
 github-kr-text-devel, golang-github-spf13-nitro-devel)
[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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package 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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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 supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to 

[Bug 1821189] Package Review: Snakemake - Workflow management system to create reproducible and scalable data analyses

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821189



--- Comment #6 from Aniket Pradhan  ---
Hey...

So, I added in a `sed .` command to replace python with python3 in the
required files.

Furthermore, it is kind of weird that there are no installation errors in the
koji scratch build, given datrie, toposort and ratelimiter are not available in
the Fedora repositories. These deps are mentioned in setup.py.

I'll try to package these deps as well, and will ping you here once its done.
:D


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1853048] Review Request: golang-github-xwb1989-sqlparser - SQL Parser implemented in Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853048

Fabian Affolter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@fabian-affolter.ch
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter  ---
Package APPROVED.


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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
 upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/fab/Documents/repos/reviews/1853048-golang-github-
 xwb1989-sqlparser/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com(golang-github-armon-socks5-devel,
 golang-github-masterminds-semver-devel, compat-golang-github-bufio-
 [...]
 ohmybackup-devel, golang-github-gin-contrib-sse-devel, golang-github-
 kisom-goutils-devel, golang-github-microsoft-opengcs-devel)
[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]: 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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package 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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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 1823381] Review Request: golang-github-gin-contrib-cors - CORS gin's middleware

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823381

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-8ffc12f360 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-8ffc12f360


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1823376] Review Request: golang-github-gin-contrib-static - Static middleware

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823376

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-c78479a154 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c78479a154


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1853049] Review Request: golang-uber-config - Configuration for Go applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853049

Fabian Affolter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@fabian-affolter.ch
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter  ---
Package APPROVED.

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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
 upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/fab/Documents/repos/reviews/1853049-golang-uber-
 config/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/gocode/src/go.uber.org(golang-uber-atomic-devel, golang-
 uber-ratelimit-devel, golang-uber-zap-devel, golang-uber-multierr-
 devel)
[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]: 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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package 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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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 supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to 

[Bug 1836559] Review Request: python-promise - Promises/A+ implementation for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836559



--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter  ---
%changelog
- Thu Jul 02 2020 Fabian Affolter  - 2.3.0-2
- Add major release to BR (rhzb#1836559)

Updated files:
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-promise.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-promise-2.3.0-2.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 1853172] New: Review Request: ghc-js-flot - Obtain minified flot code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853172

Bug ID: 1853172
   Summary: Review Request: ghc-js-flot - Obtain minified flot
code
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: peter...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-js-flot/ghc-js-flot.spec
SRPM URL:
https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-js-flot/ghc-js-flot-0.8.3-1.fc32.src.rpm

Description:
This package bundles the minified  code (a
jQuery plotting library) into a Haskell package, so it can be depended upon by
Cabal packages. The first three components of the version number match the
upstream flot version. The package is designed to meet the redistribution
requirements of downstream users (e.g. Debian).


Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=46450528


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1853172] Review Request: ghc-js-flot - Obtain minified flot code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853172



--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen  ---
Needed for shake and ghc-criterion


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1680527] Review Request: cabal-plan - Library and utility for processing cabal's plan.json file

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1680527

Jens Petersen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |DEFERRED
Last Closed||2020-07-02 06:13:33



--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen  ---
Sorry, thank you very much for the early review.

We are missing a few deps still for newer cabal-plan,
so let me close this out for 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 1853081] Review Request: mlxbf-bfscripts - Helper scripts for Mellanox BlueField systems

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853081

Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1656141




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1838306] Review Request: golang-github-graph-gophers-graphql - GraphQL server with a focus on ease of use

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838306

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2020-3a3f6ac104 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3a3f6ac104


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1853035] Review Request: golang-github-snowflakedb-gosnowflake - Go Snowflake Driver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853035

Fabian Affolter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter  ---
Package APPROVED.

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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
 upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/fab/Documents/repos/reviews/1853035-golang-github-snowflakedb-
 gosnowflake/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com(golang-github-kevinburke-ssh-config-
 devel, golang-github-bouk-httprouter-devel, golang-github-
 [...]
 github-gorilla-schema-devel, golang-github-remeh-sizedwaitgroup-devel,
 golang-github-zmap-zcrypto-devel, golang-github-opencontainers-
 selinux-devel, golang-github-mitchellh-reflectwalk-devel)
[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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package 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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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 supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: 

[Bug 1853055] Review Request: golang-uber-dig - A reflection based dependency injection toolkit for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853055

Fabian Affolter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@fabian-affolter.ch
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter  ---
Package APPROVED.


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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
 upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/fab/Documents/repos/reviews/1853055-golang-uber-
 dig/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/gocode/src/go.uber.org(golang-uber-atomic-devel, golang-
 uber-zap-devel, golang-uber-multierr-devel, golang-uber-ratelimit-
 devel)
[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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package 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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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 supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve 

[Bug 1849299] Review Request: golang-github-zeebo-incenc - Incremental Encoding

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849299

Fabian Affolter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@fabian-affolter.ch
  Flags||fedora-review?




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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 1853217] New: Review Request: ServiceReport - a tool to validate and repair system configuration for specific purposes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853217

Bug ID: 1853217
   Summary: Review Request: ServiceReport - a tool to validate and
repair system configuration for specific purposes
   Product: Fedora
   Version: 32
  Hardware: ppc64le
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: sourabhj...@linux.ibm.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Our observation from Enterprise Linux testing and customer issues in the recent
past has been that most customers have challenges in setting up their Linux
systems for First Failure Data Capture(FFDC). In some cases, log gathering
packages aren't installed, in some, the requisite daemons for the platform are
neither installed nor configured properly. The most apparent problem is the
incorrect configuration of kdump/fadump, where insufficient memory reservation
causes OOM and therefore a failure in capturing the dump.

To alleviate these issues, we have come up with a python plugin-based framework
called ServiceReport. This tool is integrated with Systemd to run on boot.
ServiceReport runs in two modes: validate and repair. By default, ServiceReport
runs in the validate mode - depending on the platform it is run on, it will
determine what necessary packages and daemons are needed for log collection and
normal system run. It will then check if those are installed and configured to
run as needed. If it isn't, ServiceReport will log errors into syslog and on
the console so that the sysadmin can take necessary action.

In the repair phase, subject to the system configured to reach the appropriate
repositories, ServiceReport will fix issues found in the validate phase. It
will also tweak the boot commandline and refresh the bootloader settings for a
successful dump, trigger distro specified steps for regenerating the initramfs,
etc. ServiceReport also provides a convenient dummy trigger to test the dump
configuration.

The tool is available at:
https://github.com/linux-ras/ServiceReport


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1853035] Review Request: golang-github-snowflakedb-gosnowflake - Go Snowflake Driver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853035

Fabian Affolter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@fabian-affolter.ch
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
  Flags||fedora-review?




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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 1853217] Review Request: ServiceReport - a tool to validate and repair system configuration for specific purposes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853217



--- Comment #2 from Sourabh Jain  ---
Hello,

The updated SPEC file and source RPM package is available here:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jainsourabh/ServiceReport/fedora-32-x86_64/01516304-ServiceReport/

Please let me know if any changes required in the SPEC file.

Thanks,
Sourabh Jain


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1789854] Review Request: ServiceReport - a tool to validate and repair system configuration for specific purposes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1789854



--- Comment #18 from IBM Bug Proxy  ---
--- Comment From sjain...@in.ibm.com 2020-07-02 06:16 EDT---
Hello Team,

As suggested in the previous comment I have opened a new BZ with 'Sourabh Jain'
 ID on https://bugzilla.redhat.com.

Also addressed the comments on the SPEC file and posted the updated SPEC on the
new BZ.

New BZ link: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853217


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1852339] Review Request: barrier - Use a single keyboard and mouse to control multiple computers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1852339

Fabian Affolter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch



--- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter  ---
From my point of view, this package should be splitted in a server and a client
package. The server package should provide a systemd unit file
(https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Systemd/).


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1853217] Review Request: ServiceReport - a tool to validate and repair system configuration for specific purposes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853217

Sourabh Jain  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value



--- Comment #1 from Sourabh Jain  ---
Hello Team,

This is not a brand new request to include the ServiceReport tool in Fedora32.

Earlier we have been tracking this request via the BZ link mentioned below.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1789854

There was some issue related to reporter of the BZ so need to create a new
request,
soon we will close the older request.

Thanks,
Sourabh Jain


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1836559] Review Request: python-promise - Promises/A+ implementation for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836559

Javier Peña  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(mail@fabian-affol
   ||ter.ch)



--- Comment #3 from Javier Peña  ---
I can't run fedora-review on the generated source rpm (the first entry in the
changelog is incorrect, it has a starting - instead of *). Also, the spec name
is "python-promis.spec" instead of "python-promise.spec".

Could you fix those? The spec otherwise looks ok to me, so once it is fixed I
can quickly run fedora-review and get a result.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1836559] Review Request: python-promise - Promises/A+ implementation for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836559

Fabian Affolter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(mail@fabian-affol |
   |ter.ch) |



--- Comment #4 from Fabian Affolter  ---
(In reply to Javier Peña from comment #3)
> I can't run fedora-review on the generated source rpm (the first entry in
> the changelog is incorrect, it has a starting - instead of *). Also, the
> spec name is "python-promis.spec" instead of "python-promise.spec".

Ups, sorry.

> Could you fix those? The spec otherwise looks ok to me, so once it is fixed
> I can quickly run fedora-review and get a result.

Thanks for the feedback.

%changelog
* Thu Jul 02 2020 Fabian Affolter  - 2.3.0-3
- Fix change log entry

Updated files:
Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-promise.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-promise-2.3.0-3.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 1836559] Review Request: python-promise - Promises/A+ implementation for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836559

Javier Peña  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #5 from Javier Peña  ---
This is the fedora-review output. Just one note:

- The spec file in the source RPM is still named python-promis.spec, please fix
that in the initial upload.

The package is APPROVED, please move on with the SCM request.

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: 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
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
 Note: Cannot find any build in BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)
[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. 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

= 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