[Bug 1869128] Review Request: ilopona - toki pona dictionary
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1869128 Bob Hepple changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bob.hep...@gmail.com 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 1867267] Review Request: wlr-sunclock - Show the sun's shadows on earth
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867267
Carson Black changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uhh...@gmail.com
Flags||needinfo?(bob.hepple@gmail.
||com)
--- Comment #2 from Carson Black ---
License is misspelled as LGPG instead of LGPL.
Glob on %{_bindir}/%{name}* seems extraneous.
rpmlint output on binary package:
➜ rpmlint wlr-sunclock-0.1.1-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm
wlr-sunclock.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gtk -> gt, gt k
wlr-sunclock.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPGv3
wlr-sunclock.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wlr-sunclock
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
rpmlint on specfile:
➜ rpmlint wlr-sunclock.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Besides those, this package looks fine. Fix the issues and this package should
be good to go.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1869128] New: Review Request: ilopona - toki pona dictionary
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1869128 Bug ID: 1869128 Summary: Review Request: ilopona - toki pona dictionary Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: uhh...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://appadeia.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ilopona/ilopona.spec SRPM URL: https://appadeia.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ilopona/ilopona-1.0.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: ilo pona is a simple dictionary application for toki pona. Fedora Account System Username: appadeia -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1862881] Review Request: R-covr - Test Coverage for Packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862881 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-e67ab07606 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 1862919] Review Request: R-isoband - Generate Isolines and Isobands from Regularly Spaced Elevation Grids
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862919 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-ef7a40cb56 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 1866165] Review Request: R-bookdown - Authoring Books and Technical Documents with R Markdown
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1866165 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-08-17 01:13:35 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-11a1e38f35 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 1862902] Review Request: R-tesseract - Open Source OCR Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862902 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-91faae3ba0 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 1862862] Review Request: R-formattable - Create 'Formattable' Data Structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862862 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-e7e88f2331 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 1865739] Review Request: R-profmem - Simple Memory Profiling for R
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1865739 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-c5bbbd177c 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 1862859] Review Request: R-DT - R Wrapper of the JavaScript Library 'DataTables'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862859 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-71e61ba627 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 1866166] Review Request: R-keyring - Access the System Credential Store from R
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1866166 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-5d5bd6bc43 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 1862855] Review Request: R-crosstalk - Inter-Widget Interactivity for HTML Widgets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862855 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-b1fd7b70a2 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 1857747] Review Request: golang-uber-goleak - Goroutine leak detector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1857747 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-0e7ba24f67 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 1858193] Review Request: golang-github-tomnomnom-linkheader - Golang HTTP Link header parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858193 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-f258cf4851 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 1866143] Review Request: R-RPostgres - Rcpp Interface to PostgreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1866143 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-08-17 01:13:33 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-39f6a18b84 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 1866166] Review Request: R-keyring - Access the System Credential Store from R
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1866166 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-08-17 01:07:59 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-1272b7b881 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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 1862862] Review Request: R-formattable - Create 'Formattable' Data Structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862862 Bug 1862862 depends on bug 1862859, which changed state. Bug 1862859 Summary: Review Request: R-DT - R Wrapper of the JavaScript Library 'DataTables' https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862859 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1862859] Review Request: R-DT - R Wrapper of the JavaScript Library 'DataTables'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862859 Bug 1862859 depends on bug 1862855, which changed state. Bug 1862855 Summary: Review Request: R-crosstalk - Inter-Widget Interactivity for HTML Widgets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862855 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1862881] Review Request: R-covr - Test Coverage for Packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862881 Bug 1862881 depends on bug 1862859, which changed state. Bug 1862859 Summary: Review Request: R-DT - R Wrapper of the JavaScript Library 'DataTables' https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862859 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1862862] Review Request: R-formattable - Create 'Formattable' Data Structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862862 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-08-17 01:07:52 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-2f76bc53b4 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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 1862855] Review Request: R-crosstalk - Inter-Widget Interactivity for HTML Widgets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862855 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-08-17 01:07:46 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-ed9a1e5d2e has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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 1862881] Review Request: R-covr - Test Coverage for Packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862881 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-08-17 01:07:55 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-939748287f has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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 1865739] Review Request: R-profmem - Simple Memory Profiling for R
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1865739 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-08-17 01:07:45 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-dc504a2e7e has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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 1853053] Review Request: golang-uber-fx - A dependency injection based application framework for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853053 Bug 1853053 depends on bug 1857747, which changed state. Bug 1857747 Summary: Review Request: golang-uber-goleak - Goroutine leak detector https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1857747 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1862859] Review Request: R-DT - R Wrapper of the JavaScript Library 'DataTables'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862859 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-08-17 01:07:49 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-6c761ff866 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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 1862902] Review Request: R-tesseract - Open Source OCR Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862902 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-08-17 01:07:57 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-fc1057e572 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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 1857747] Review Request: golang-uber-goleak - Goroutine leak detector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1857747 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-08-17 01:07:29 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-2dd569ec66 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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 1858193] Review Request: golang-github-tomnomnom-linkheader - Golang HTTP Link header parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858193 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-08-17 01:07:32 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-eff611bfc0 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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 1862919] Review Request: R-isoband - Generate Isolines and Isobands from Regularly Spaced Elevation Grids
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862919 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-08-17 01:07:42 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-2da1535d11 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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 1869109] New: Review Request: kgx - Mobile optimized Terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1869109 Bug ID: 1869109 Summary: Review Request: kgx - Mobile optimized Terminal Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: h...@nikhiljha.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/fedora-mobile/kgx/-/raw/master/kgx.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/njha/mobile/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/01305694-kgx/kgx-0.2.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: A minimal terminal for GNOME, optimized for mobile devices Fedora Account System Username: njha COPR Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/njha/mobile/build/1305694/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1862623] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-hash - Generate hash functions from type expressions and definitions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862623
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Jared Smith ---
Package is APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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
x 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", "Expat License". 39 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jsmith/Documents/Fedora/Reviews/1862623-ocaml-ppx-
hash/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 51200 bytes in 9 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
Ocaml:
[?]: This should never happen
= 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
[Bug 1862621] Review Request: ocaml-jst-config - Compile-time configuration for Jane Street libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862621
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Jared Smith ---
Package is approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: 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". 8 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jsmith/Documents/Fedora/Reviews/1862621-ocaml-jst-
config/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package 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]: 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
Ocaml:
[?]: This should never happen
= 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
[Bug 1818999] Review Request: ofono - open source telephony
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1818999 --- Comment #7 from Nikhil Jha --- Thanks & sorry for the late reply, I got busy with school again. - Missing isa in the devel subpackage: Fixed. - Not needed Fixed. - Error in %changelog, March 30 is a Monday: Fixed. - Explicitly add a BR against gcc Fixed. - AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found Patched, sent patch to upstream mailing list. --- SPEC: https://gitlab.com/fedora-mobile/ofono/-/raw/master/ofono.spec COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/njha/mobile/build/1613145/ Direct link to SRPM: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/njha/mobile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01613145-ofono/ofono-1.31-1.fc34.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 1862548] Review Request: rust-ring - Safe, fast, small crypto using Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862548
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Jared Smith ---
Package is 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]: 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", "SSLeay", "ISC License", "OpenSSL
License", "BSD 4-clause "Original" or "Old" License Apache License
1.0", "OpenSSL License BSD 4-clause "Original" or "Old" License",
"Expat License", "*No copyright* OpenSSL License". 315 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jsmith/Documents/Fedora/Reviews/1862548-rust-
ring/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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
Perl:
[?]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`";
echo $version)) missing?
= 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).
[?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
[Bug 1869107] Review Request: purple-mm-sms - A libpurple plugin for sending and receiving SMS via ModemManager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1869107 Nikhil Jha changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1817424 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1817424 [Bug 1817424] Tracker for mobility SIG activities -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1869107] New: Review Request: purple-mm-sms - A libpurple plugin for sending and receiving SMS via ModemManager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1869107 Bug ID: 1869107 Summary: Review Request: purple-mm-sms - A libpurple plugin for sending and receiving SMS via ModemManager Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: h...@nikhiljha.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/fedora-mobile/purple-mm-sms/-/raw/master/purple-mm-sms.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/njha/mobile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01613126-purple-mm-sms/purple-mm-sms-0.1.7-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: A libpurple plugin for sending and receiving SMS via ModemManager Fedora Account System Username: njha --- One of the packages for Fedora on PinePhone/Librem5/etc. COPR Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/njha/mobile/build/1613126/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1862080] Review Request: jakarta-persistence - JPA / Jakarta Persistence API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862080 --- Comment #4 from Jerry James --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #3) > Thanks for another review! You don't have to do all of them (today), you > know. I linked only two of my open requests on purpose :-) Yes, I know. I had some free time, so I figured I could help you move along. > I'll work on that update next. I wasn't sure if it would introduce > additional breaking changes. I figured that was the case, but noted the version because fedora-review nicely asked me to do so. :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1862080] Review Request: jakarta-persistence - JPA / Jakarta Persistence API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862080 --- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini --- Thanks for another review! You don't have to do all of them (today), you know. I linked only two of my open requests on purpose :-) > Whatever was causing the osgi-compendium problem appears to be gone. Yeah, Mat Booth helped me figure that one out, and I updated the files. I should have added a comment here as well. > Version 3.0.0 is the latest version. I'll work on that update next. I wasn't sure if it would introduce additional breaking changes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1868994] Review Request: jakarta-ws-rs - Jakarta RESTful Web Services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868994 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST QA Contact|loganje...@gmail.com|extras...@fedoraproject.org --- Comment #6 from Jerry James --- Well that was clumsy of me. Let's set the QA Contact back to the default, shall we? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1862080] Review Request: jakarta-persistence - JPA / Jakarta Persistence API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862080
Jerry James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
This package is APPROVED.
Whatever was causing the osgi-compendium problem appears to be gone. I did a
successful mock build with this version of jakarta-persistence in my local
repo.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Version 3.0.0 is the latest version.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[x]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
= 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.
[!]: 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.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in
[Bug 1862080] Review Request: jakarta-persistence - JPA / Jakarta Persistence API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862080 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jerry James --- I will take this review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1862078] Review Request: jakarta-messaging - JMS / Jakarta Messaging API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862078 --- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini --- Thanks a lot for the fast 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 1862078] Review Request: jakarta-messaging - JMS / Jakarta Messaging API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862078
Jerry James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
This package is APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[x]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
= 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.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a
[Bug 1868994] Review Request: jakarta-ws-rs - Jakarta RESTful Web Services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868994 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com --- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini --- Thanks! I also added you as the Assignee in addition to you being "QA Contact" (whatever that is). Why those two "edit" buttons are so close together, I'll never know. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1862078] Review Request: jakarta-messaging - JMS / Jakarta Messaging API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862078 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jerry James --- I will take this review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1868994] Review Request: jakarta-ws-rs - Jakarta RESTful Web Services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868994 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Jerry James --- Looks good. This 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 1868994] Review Request: jakarta-ws-rs - Jakarta RESTful Web Services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868994 --- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #2) > Issues: > === > - While NOTICE.md does say that the license is EPL-2.0 or GPLv2 with an > exception, please note that this file is licensed ASL-2.0: > > jaxrs-api/src/main/java/javax/ws/rs/core/GenericEntity.java > > So the License field should be (I think): > > (EPL-2.0 or GPLv2 with exceptions) and ASL 2.0 Good catch. I have corrected it with these two lines: # ASL 2.0: jaxrs-api/src/main/java/javax/ws/rs/core/GenericEntity.java License:(EPL-2.0 or GPLv2 with exceptions) and ASL 2.0 > - The javadoc subpackage does not actually contain any javadocs. Right ... I kept the -javadoc package as a "placeholder" so they can be added back seamlessly once the xmvn-javadoc bug is fixed. I've now dropped it and added a more prominent note above the "%mvn_build -j" with a link to the upstream xmvn bug. Updated files, URLs are the same. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1868994] Review Request: jakarta-ws-rs - Jakarta RESTful Web Services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868994
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- While NOTICE.md does say that the license is EPL-2.0 or GPLv2 with an
exception, please note that this file is licensed ASL-2.0:
jaxrs-api/src/main/java/javax/ws/rs/core/GenericEntity.java
So the License field should be (I think):
(EPL-2.0 or GPLv2 with exceptions) and ASL 2.0
- The javadoc subpackage does not actually contain any javadocs.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: 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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: 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
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
= 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.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags
[Bug 1868994] Review Request: jakarta-ws-rs - Jakarta RESTful Web Services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868994 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |loganje...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jerry James --- I will take this review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1867981] Review Request: jaxb-stax-ex - Extended StAX API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867981 --- Comment #3 from Fabio Valentini --- Thanks for the review! I see the 2.0.0 release is quite recent, but it actually doesn't provide substantial changes over 1.8.3 other than a few dependency bumps and import changes (despite the version bump), so I'll work on that next. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1867981] Review Request: jaxb-stax-ex - Extended StAX API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867981
Jerry James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
This package is APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- The latest version is 2.0.0.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
= 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.
[!]: 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.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the
[Bug 1867981] Review Request: jaxb-stax-ex - Extended StAX API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867981 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||loganje...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jerry James --- I will take this review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1862625] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-js-style - Code style checker for Jane Street OCaml packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862625 --- Comment #7 from Fabio Valentini --- Great! I'll link the two that are currently blocking other work: - stax-ex 1.7.7 → jaxb-stax-ex 1.8.3: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867981 (blocks xmlstreambuffer 1.5.9 update) - glassfish-jax-rs-api → jakarta-ws-rs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868994 (also fixes the package's FTBFS problem on f33+) Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1862625] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-js-style - Code style checker for Jane Street OCaml packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862625 --- Comment #6 from Jerry James --- Thank you, Fabio. Yes, I'm happy to do some reviews for you. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1862620] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-assert - Assert-like extension nodes that raise useful errors on failure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862620 --- Comment #4 from Jared Smith --- Fantastic :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1862620] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-assert - Assert-like extension nodes that raise useful errors on failure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862620 --- Comment #3 from Jerry James --- Thank you again, Jared. The permission issues are due to the systemd-nspawn problem with the new glibc that has been discussed on fedora-devel-list recently. Running mock with --isolation=simple works around the problem. Indeed, the permissions are correct in my local mock build. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1862548] Review Request: rust-ring - Safe, fast, small crypto using Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862548 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jared Smith --- Missing dependencies: DEBUG util.py:621: Problem 1: nothing provides requested (crate(web-sys/Crypto) >= 0.3.37 with crate(web-sys/Crypto) < 0.4.0) DEBUG util.py:621: Problem 2: nothing provides requested (crate(web-sys/Window) >= 0.3.37 with crate(web-sys/Window) < 0.4.0) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1862796] Review Request: rust-parsec-interface - Parsec interface library to communicate using the wire protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862796 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jared Smith --- I seem to be missing some dependencies for this package: DEBUG util.py:621: Problem 1: conflicting requests DEBUG util.py:621:- nothing provides crate(derive_arbitrary/default) = 0.4.5 needed by rust-arbitrary+derive-devel-0.4.5-2.fc33.noarch DEBUG util.py:621: Problem 2: nothing provides requested (crate(prost-build/default) >= 0.6.1 with crate(prost-build/default) < 0.7.0) DEBUG util.py:621: Problem 3: nothing provides requested (crate(secrecy/default) >= 0.6.0 with crate(secrecy/default) < 0.7.0) DEBUG util.py:621: Problem 4: nothing provides requested (crate(secrecy/serde) >= 0.6.0 with crate(secrecy/serde) < 0.7.0) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1862542] Review Request: rust-web-sys - Bindings for all Web APIs, a procedurally generated crate from WebIDL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862542
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jared Smith ---
Package is 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 58 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jsmith/Documents/Fedora/Reviews/1862536-rust-js-
sys/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-js-
sys-devel , rust-js-sys+default-devel
[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
[Bug 1862536] Review Request: rust-js-sys - Bindings for all JS global objects and functions in all JS environments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862536
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jared Smith ---
Package is 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 58 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jsmith/Documents/Fedora/Reviews/1862536-rust-js-
sys/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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).
[?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-js-
sys-devel , rust-js-sys+default-devel
[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.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is
[Bug 1862528] Review Request: rust-wasm-bindgen - Definition of the `#[wasm_bindgen]` attribute, an internal dependency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862528
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jared Smith ---
Package is 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 237 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jsmith/Documents/Fedora/Reviews/1862528-rust-wasm-
bindgen/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
wasm-bindgen-devel , rust-wasm-bindgen+default-devel , rust-wasm-
bindgen+enable-interning-devel , rust-wasm-bindgen+nightly-devel ,
rust-wasm-bindgen+serde-devel , rust-wasm-bindgen+serde-serialize-
devel , rust-wasm-bindgen+serde_json-devel , rust-wasm-bindgen+spans-
devel , rust-wasm-bindgen+std-devel , rust-wasm-bindgen+strict-macro-
devel , rust-wasm-bindgen+xxx_debug_only_print_generated_code-devel
[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
[Bug 1862620] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-assert - Assert-like extension nodes that raise useful errors on failure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862620
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Jared Smith ---
Package is APPROVED. Please check the permissions on some of the executables.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Permissions on files are set properly.
Note: See rpmlint output
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_file_permissions
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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". 15 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jsmith/Documents/Fedora/Reviews/1862620-ocaml-ppx-
assert/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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 10 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]: 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
Ocaml:
[x]: This should never happen
= 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 1862528] Review Request: rust-wasm-bindgen - Definition of the `#[wasm_bindgen]` attribute, an internal dependency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862528 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1862795] Review Request: rust-prost - Protocol Buffers implementation for the Rust Language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862795
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Jared Smith ---
Package is 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/jsmith/Documents/Fedora/Reviews/1862795-rust-
prost/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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: 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
= 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).
[?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
prost-devel , rust-prost+default-devel , rust-prost+no-recursion-
limit-devel , rust-prost+prost-derive-devel
[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.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer
[Bug 1862782] Review Request: rust-derivative - Set of alternative `derive` attributes for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862782
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jared Smith ---
Package is APPROVED. There are a few errors in the rpmlint output that should
be fixed (adding a shebang to the executable files) prior to building.
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", "Expat License", "Apache License (v2.0)
or MIT license". 68 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/jsmith/Documents/Fedora/1862782-rust-
derivative/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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).
[?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
derivative-devel , rust-derivative+default-devel , rust-
derivative+use_core-devel
[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
[Bug 1862965] Review Request: rust-tpm2-policy - Specify and send TPM2 policies to satisfy object authorization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862965
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Jared Smith ---
Package is 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/jsmith/Documents/Fedora/Reviews/1862965-rust-
tpm2-policy/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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package 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]: 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).
[?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
tpm2-policy-devel , rust-tpm2-policy+default-devel
[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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot}
[Bug 1862218] Review Request: rust-wasm-bindgen-macro - Definition of the `#[wasm_bindgen]` attribute, an internal dependency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862218
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Jared Smith ---
Package is APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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", "Expat License", "Apache License (v2.0)
or MIT license". 42 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/jsmith/Documents/Fedora/Reviews/1862218-rust-
wasm-bindgen-macro/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package 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]: 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).
[?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
wasm-bindgen-macro-devel , rust-wasm-bindgen-macro+default-devel ,
rust-wasm-bindgen-macro+spans-devel , rust-wasm-bindgen-macro+strict-
macro-devel , rust-wasm-bindgen-
macro+xxx_debug_only_print_generated_code-devel
[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
[Bug 1854729] Review Request: nispor - API for network state query written in rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1854729 Gris Ge changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com ||) --- Comment #15 from Gris Ge --- New rpm SPEC uploaded: https://fedorapeople.org/~cathay4t/nispor/nispor.spec New srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/cathay4t/nispor/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01612205-nispor/nispor-0.3.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Changes: * Upgrade to 0.3.0 * `python3-nmstate` now have egginfo files. * Removed the need of rust-pyo3. So currently, missing dependent rust-crates is rust-netlink and its subpackages. Please also review these dependent rust-crates: * Bug 1860781 Review Request: rust-netlink-packet-core * Bug 1860784 Review Request: rust-netlink-packet-route * Bug 1860785 Review Request: rust-netlink-packet-utils * Bug 1860787 Review Request: rust-netlink-proto * Bug 1860790 Review Request: rust-netlink-sys * Bug 1860792 Review Request: rust-rtnetlink Since I am actively working with rust-netlink upstream, I will be the rpm maintainer of above packages also. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1868846] Review Request: fcitx5 - Next generation of fcitx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868846 Qiyu Yan changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yanqiyu/fcitx5/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01612142-fcitx5/fcitx5.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yanqiyu/fcitx5/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01612142-fcitx5/fcitx5-0-0.2.git87fb655.fc34.src.rpm Description: Fcitx 5 is a generic input method framework released under LGPL-2.1+. Fedora Account System Username: yanqiyu -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1868846] Review Request: fcitx5 - Next generation of fcitx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868846
--- Comment #2 from Qiyu Yan ---
> Could you split these into separate lines and sort them alphabetically?
> Also, can you check whether it's possible to use the "pkgconfig(foo)" format
> for the -devel packages?
Fixed, and I am planning to fix same problem for other fcitx5* packages, may
need some time.
>
> > %check
> > %ctest
>
> I see 2 failing tests when building the package locally:
> 34: I2020-08-15 17:53:56.580770 emoji.cpp:182] Trying to load emoji for en
> from /usr/share/unicode/cldr/common/annotations/en.xml: 2152 entry(s) loaded.
> 34: I2020-08-15 17:53:56.580788 addonmanager.cpp:271] Unloading addon emoji
> 31/36 Test #34: testemoji Passed0.02 sec
> 32/36 Test #33: testisocodes . Passed0.04 sec
> 2:
> /home/amender/rpmbuild/BUILD/fcitx5-87fb655852092f3ed2f79a3aac86fc6d5d92069f/
> test/dbus_wrapper.sh: line 26: 34577 Aborted (core dumped)
> "$@"
> 2:
> /home/amender/rpmbuild/BUILD/fcitx5-87fb655852092f3ed2f79a3aac86fc6d5d92069f/
> test/dbus_wrapper.sh: line 6: kill: (34562) - No such process
> 33/36 Test #2: testdbus .***Failed0.09 sec
> F2020-08-15 17:53:56.549280 testdbus.cpp:94] slot failed
> /home/amender/rpmbuild/BUILD/fcitx5-87fb655852092f3ed2f79a3aac86fc6d5d92069f/
> test/dbus_wrapper.sh: line 26: 34577 Aborted (core dumped)
> "$@"
> /home/amender/rpmbuild/BUILD/fcitx5-87fb655852092f3ed2f79a3aac86fc6d5d92069f/
> test/dbus_wrapper.sh: line 6: kill: (34562) - No such process
>
> Do the tests work for you? I had to disable the tests to run fedora-review.
It works, both in copr or local machine
e.g. https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/yanqiyu/fcitx5/build/1612145/
>
> > %files -f %{name}.lang
> > %license LICENSES/LGPL-2.1-or-later.txt
> > %doc README.md
> > %{_bindir}/*
>
> I think here you can list the binaries, since there aren't so many of them:
> %{_bindir}/fcitx5
> %{_bindir}/fcitx5-configtool
> %{_bindir}/fcitx5-remote
Using
%{_bindir}/%{name}
%{_bindir}/%{name}-configtool
%{_bindir}/%{name}-remote
>
> > %files devel
> > %{_includedir}/*
> > %{_libdir}/cmake/*
> > %{_libdir}/*.so
> > %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/*
>
> Here I would be more specific like so:
> %{_includedir}/Fcitx5/
> %{_libdir}/cmake/Fcitx5* # quite a lot of CMake dirs
> %{_libdir}/libFcitx5*.so
> %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/Fcitx5*.pc
Done
>
> It's not mandatory, but it gives you tighter control over what goes into the
> package and avoids picking up unintended files :)
>
> > %files libs
> > %{_libdir}/%{name}
> > %{_libdir}/*.so.*
>
> Same here:
> %{_libdir}/%{name}/ # that way your package owns the entire dir
> %{_libdir}/libFcitx5*.so.*
>
> You can be even more specific with the SO files to pick up soname bumps, but
> again that's not mandatory.
Done.
>
> The full review matrix below. I marked some items as "fail", because I think
> they might need to be discussed:
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
>
>
> Issues:
> ===
> - Package installs properly.
> Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
> Review: It might be because I had to build the packages on my F32 system
> manually,
> but please have a look at the errors at the end of the review.
> See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
> file-validate if there is such a file.
> Review: Desktop files should be installed using one of the above commands
Fixed
>
>
> = MUST items =
>
> C/C++:
> [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
> [x]: Package contains no static executables.
> [!]: 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.
> Review: Present in fcitx5-libs. Is it possible to version them?
They are meant to be loaded internally, so I tried to exclude them from being
included into Provides
> [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> Review: fcitx5-libs can theoretically be installed alone.
> Can you add a license file to it as well?
Fixed
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> Note: Directories without known owners:
> /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48,
> /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable,
> /usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps,
> /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps,
> /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps,
> /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps,
> /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16,
> /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128,
>
[Bug 1868846] Review Request: fcitx5 - Next generation of fcitx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868846 Qiyu Yan changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yanqiyu/fcitx5/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01607752-fcitx5/fcitx5.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yanqiyu/fcitx5/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01607752-fcitx5/fcitx5-0-0.1.20200813git87fb655.fc33.src.rpm Description: 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 1868845] Review Request: xcb-imdkit - Input method development support for xcb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868845 Qiyu Yan changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yanqiyu/fcitx5/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01607826-xcb-imdkit/xcb-imdkit.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yanqiyu/fcitx5/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01607826-xcb-imdkit/xcb-imdkit-0-0.1.20200811gitd6609a7.fc33.src.rpm Description: xcb-imdkit is an implementation of xim protocol in xcb, comparing with the implementation of IMDkit with Xlib, and xim inside Xlib, it has less memory foot print, better performance, and safer on malformed client. Fedora Account System Username: yanqiyu -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1868845] Review Request: xcb-imdkit - Input method development support for xcb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868845
--- Comment #3 from Qiyu Yan ---
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1)
> Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=49309699
>
> > License:LGPLv2
>
> licensecheck picked up a couple of files with a different license:
> xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/XlcPubI.h: NTP License (legal disclaimer)
> xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/XlcPublic.h: NTP License (legal disclaimer)
> xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/lcCT.c: NTP License (legal disclaimer)
> xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/lcCharSet.c: NTP License (legal disclaimer)
> xcb-imdkit/src/xlibi18n/lcUTF8.c: NTP License (legal disclaimer)
>
> Here's the text of the license for reference:
> https://opensource.org/licenses/NTP
>
> I checked the files and indeed the license comments in them match the NTP
> license. The problem is that NTP is not an official license tag:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:
> Main?rd=Licensing#Software_License_List
>
> I will contact Fedora Legal to get some feedback on this. Upstream should
> also be informed, I think, since they do not mention the NTP license in the
> README. They mention the BSD license, but licensecheck didn't pick up any
> BSD-licensed files.
>
> > BuildRequires: cmake, extra-cmake-modules
> > BuildRequires: gcc-c++
> > BuildRequires: libxcb-devel, xcb-util-devel, xcb-util-keysyms-devel
>
> Could you split these into separate lines and sort them alphabetically?
> Also, could you check whether it's possible to use the "pkgconfig(foo)"
> format for the -devel packages?
>
> > %files
> > %license LICENSES/LGPL-2.1-only.txt
> > %doc README.md
> > %{_libdir}/*.so.*
>
> I would be more explicit in the final line, like this:
> %{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.*
>
> You can also use "%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so.0*" so that soname bumps across
> package updates are captured more easily.
>
> > %files devel
> > %{_includedir}/xcb-imdkit
> > %{_libdir}/cmake/XCBImdkit
> > %{_libdir}/*.so
>
> Same here - "%{_libdir}/lib%{name}.so" instead of "%{_libdir}/*.so"
Above are fixed
>
> The full review matrix:
> 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
> one supported primary architecture.
> Note: Using prebuilt packages
> [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
> other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
> Guidelines.
> Review: Theoretically yes, but the NTP license doesn't have a dedicated
> license tag.
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
> found: "Unknown or generated", "NTP License (legal disclaimer)",
> "Expat License GNU Lesser General Public License". 87 files have
> unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
> /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/xcb-imdkit/xcb-imdkit/licensecheck.txt
> Review: see comment above.
> [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.
> [?]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> Review: Not sure about this. rpmlint complains
> and package uses commit hashes for versioning.
This is because %forgemeta did something tricky, the snapshot date generated
can be different. Anyway, changed to 20200811, should silent the warning.
> [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
> Review: Yes, but see comments about licenses.
> [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
> [x]: 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
[Bug 1862625] Review Request: ocaml-ppx-js-style - Code style checker for Jane Street OCaml packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862625 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini --- Great, good to know. Since those two points were the only things remaining from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862625#c2 : Package is APPROVED (If you want to swap reviews, I have a few open ones - and they should be easy, since they're "only" package renaming requests.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1809405] Review Request: python-sumatra - Tool for managing and tracking projects based on numerical simulation and/or analysis, with the aim of supporting reproducible research
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809405 --- Comment #23 from Ntish --- I have uploaded latest spec file and artifacts on https://nitsharma.fedorapeople.org/ Thanks again :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1809405] Review Request: python-sumatra - Tool for managing and tracking projects based on numerical simulation and/or analysis, with the aim of supporting reproducible research
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809405 --- Comment #22 from Ntish --- I followed below steps to have successful build. 1.) build sumatra package and generated tar file from it. 2.) generated rpm package via fedpkg from tar file above 3.) tested using mock. I tried build from git, but it requires some changes to source code to have successful build. Can you please have a look at it again. Thanks for bearing with me :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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 1809405] Review Request: python-sumatra - Tool for managing and tracking projects based on numerical simulation and/or analysis, with the aim of supporting reproducible research
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809405 --- Comment #21 from Ntish --- There seems to be an issue with the current structure of git repo, the name of the repo is in consistence, somewhere it is Sumatra with a capital S, and at some places it is small s. I have tried my best to have a uniform structure in my local and fixed few issues, to build it in my local. I tried below commands to build to package, and i have attached response aling with it. $ fedpkg --release f32 local + RPM_EC=0 ++ jobs -p + exit 0 $ fedpkg --release f32 lint python-sumatra.src: W: file-size-mismatch Sumatra-0.7.4.tar.gz = 2312319, https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/S/Sumatra/Sumatra-0.7.4.tar.gz = 2067969 python3-Sumatra.noarch: W: no-documentation python3-Sumatra.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smt python3-Sumatra.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smt-complete.sh python3-Sumatra.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smtweb 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. It's getting build on my local. $ mock python-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc32.src.rpm INFO: mock.py version 2.3 starting (python version = 3.7.7)... Start(bootstrap): init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish(bootstrap): init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active ... Wrote: /builddir/build/RPMS/python3-Sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc30.noarch.rpm Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.bjixo0 + umask 022 + cd /builddir/build/BUILD + cd Sumatra-0.7.4 + /usr/bin/rm -rf /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc30.x86_64 + exit 0 Finish: rpmbuild python-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc32.src.rpm Finish: build phase for python-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc32.src.rpm INFO: Done(python-sumatra-0.7.4-1.fc32.src.rpm) Config(default) 12 minutes 41 seconds INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-30-x86_64/result Finish: run It's getting build on my local and even through mock. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC 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
