[Bug 1138901] Review Request: php-pecl-yac - Lockless user data cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138901 --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Update to 0.9.2 (no change, just our patch merged) Spec: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/remicollet/remirepo/542b6ac58e2512bf8e38a6eb2b0185fa02843ebd/php/pecl/php-pecl-yac/php-pecl-yac.spec Srpm: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-pecl-yac-0.9.2-1.remi.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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1152966] Review Request: indi-gphoto - INDI driver for many cameras using gPhoto
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152966 Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |ASSIGNED CC||ville.sky...@iki.fi Blocks||496968 (DebugInfo) --- Comment #9 from Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi --- (In reply to Florian der-flo Lehner from comment #2) [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. Why is this not applicable? A brief look at the -debuginfo package reveals that it contains no sources, and if rpmlint had been run against it, it would also have reported it: | $ rpmlint -i ./indi-gphoto-debuginfo-0.9.9-2.20141015svn1783.fc22.x86_64.rpm | indi-gphoto-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources | This debuginfo package appears to contain debug symbols but no source files. | This is often a sign of binaries being unexpectedly stripped too early during | the build, or being compiled without compiler debug flags (which again often | is a sign of distro's default compiler flags ignored which might have security | consequences), or other compiler flags which result in rpmbuild's debuginfo | extraction not working as expected. Verify that the binaries are not | unexpectedly stripped and that the intended compiler flags are used. Looking at the build log it is clear that $RPM_OPT_FLAGS are not being used, and as rpmlint mentions, that's not only a debuginfo issue but also a potential security one. In this case the problem is in the upstream CMakeLists.txt, will attach a patch, please submit it upstream. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=496968 [Bug 496968] Tracking bug for packages with debuginfo problems -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1152966] Review Request: indi-gphoto - INDI driver for many cameras using gPhoto
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152966 --- Comment #10 from Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi --- Created attachment 950603 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=950603action=edit Don't override user set CXXFLAGS/CFLAGS -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156967] New: A bash implementation for 2048 for bash.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156967 Bug ID: 1156967 Summary: A bash implementation for 2048 for bash. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: villadalm...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Flags: fedora-review+ fedora-cvs+ Description of problem: Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156967] A bash implementation for 2048 for bash.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156967 --- Comment #1 from Rino Rondan villadalm...@gmail.com --- https://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/bash2048-1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm https://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/bash2048.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1151842] Review Request: apx - QIX clone, cut into and claim the square area
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151842 Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||e...@mayorgalinux.com Docs Contact||e...@mayorgalinux.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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1146933] Review Request: fontdump - Dump the CSS and different formats offonts for Google Fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146933 Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||e...@mayorgalinux.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|e...@mayorgalinux.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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1154743] Review Request: python-pretend - A library for stubbing in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154743 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- 1) The given spec file and spec file packaged in SRPM is not same, I guess its some whitespace issue. correct this by having same spec packaged in srpm. 2) Group tag is optional in fedora releases. You may want to remove it but not mandatory 3) you should add license tag for python3-pretend also. 4) Its a good practice to remove any upstream supplied egg-info files in %prep and have packaged the newly generated egg-info files. rm -rf *.egg-info Otherwise package looks fine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156619] Review Request: python-tzlocal - tzinfo object for the local timezone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156619 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- 1) rpmlint on all generated rpms gave following common messages W: summary-not-capitalized C tzinfo object for the local timezone E: description-line-too-long C This Python module returns a tzinfo object with the local timezone information under Unix and Win-32. = you may want to add some word or re-word the summary also limit the line to 80 characters in description 2) I see some removals are done in %install section. Can you add comments to explain why you need to execute rm commands there? 3) you should in %prep rm -rf *.egg-info -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady --- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- The package does not build for F20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7941115 Though, it builds currently for F21+: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7941106 I assume that you don't want to provide your package for F20 then. Please confirm my assumption. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1152966] Review Request: indi-gphoto - INDI driver for many cameras using gPhoto
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152966 --- Comment #11 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Ville Skyttä from comment #10) Created attachment 950603 [details] Don't override user set CXXFLAGS/CFLAGS Thank you for your investigation! I will submit the patch upstream. Greetings, Christian -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1154213] Review Request: python-structlog - Painless structural logging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154213 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||panem...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|panem...@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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 --- Comment #5 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com --- I confirm this, the libindi package in F20 contains 0.9.6 and the api and abi of this version are not compatible with 0.9.9. So package only for F21+, an libindi update is not possible in F20 due to the changes since 0.9.6. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|NotReady| -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1092828] Review Request: turses - A Twitter client for the console
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1092828 --- Comment #15 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net --- How i can continue to have the python-py more than 1.4.18 ... I need 1.4.24 Development of packages in the distribution typically starts in Rawhide (git master and rawhide repository), and when/whether version upgrades will be propagated to stable dist releases depends on how it would affect stability (API, ABI, runtime, buildtime). There is 1.4.25 for F21 and Rawhide since Oct 11: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/python-py.git/tree/ http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=7479 If not, you would open a ticket against python-py: http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/python-py -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156657] Review Request: indi-aagcloudwatcher - INDI driver for the AAG Cloud Watcher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156657 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|projects...@smart.ms -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1152966] Review Request: indi-gphoto - INDI driver for many cameras using gPhoto
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152966 --- Comment #12 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com --- Done :) https://sourceforge.net/p/indi/bugs/55/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1154743] Review Request: python-pretend - A library for stubbing in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154743 --- Comment #2 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com --- Thanks for commenting. 1) Rebuilt package and reuploaded spec/srpm, should be ok now. (rpmlint has no warnings/errors) 2) Deleted group tag 3) Added license tag to python3-pretend 4) I think the package did only install the new egg-info but I added the rm -rf *.egg-info to %prep to be sure. srpm + spec uploaded to the same url (did not increase package version number) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1154743] Review Request: python-pretend - A library for stubbing in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154743 --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- okay. This package looks good for final package review. Can you do more package reviews (3 to 5) where you actually find issues in packaging and suggest solutions on how to fix it. I will sponsor you then :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156619] Review Request: python-tzlocal - tzinfo object for the local timezone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156619 --- Comment #2 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com --- Thank you for commenting. I have added the rm commands in %install so that unit tests are not installed. I could not find a policy which mandates this but thought that it would be clean to not install those files as users will not use them. I got the idea from the python-setuptools.spec . If you think they need to be installed I will delete the rm lines. I've added comments to the spec to explain this. I have updated the spec and srpm: - deleted group tag - added license to python3 module - rewritten summary - wrapped description - added rm -rf *.egg-info to %prep - added comments to the rm commands in %install section -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156657] Review Request: indi-aagcloudwatcher - INDI driver for the AAG Cloud Watcher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156657
Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
Please tell me if you would like to fix any of my hints. Otherwise, this review
is APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
++ = remarks
= 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.
++ If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the
packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake.
Please do so.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v3 or later). Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/build/1156657-indi-aagcloudwatcher/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[-]: 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.
[?]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
++ This is not fully clear. I don't understand why you use macros sometimes and
sometimes not. See also my initial comments about that.
What does consistently mean for you? Just as a warning to keep potential
upwards compatibility if folder standards change or the like.
[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.
++ Consider here that it does not build for F20.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 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 %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[?]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
++ Please do so. See also doubled Remark above.
[x]: Final
[Bug 1156657] Review Request: indi-aagcloudwatcher - INDI driver for the AAG Cloud Watcher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156657 --- Comment #4 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com --- Thank you for your fast review Raphael :) (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #3) [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. ++ If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake. Please do so. The package contains a copy of the GPLv3+ in LICENXE.txt [?]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). ++ This is not fully clear. I don't understand why you use macros sometimes and sometimes not. See also my initial comments about that. What does consistently mean for you? Just as a warning to keep potential upwards compatibility if folder standards change or the like. I can change this if neccessary (you mean the sed command i think) [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. ++ Consider here that it does not build for F20. ExcludeArch means something like doesn't build for i686, not the Fedora release. [?]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. ++ Please do so. See also doubled Remark above. See above, LICENSE.txt contains the complete GPLv3 [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. ++ I dont have INDI stuff locally to test. So I have to trust the maintainer for functionality or potential users to file bugs in the future. I tested it. [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. ++ Maybe call aagcloudwatcher_test in %check? This binary checks if the device is connected properly. Not a check in sense of %check section in spec. Greetings, Christian -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156657] Review Request: indi-aagcloudwatcher - INDI driver for the AAG Cloud Watcher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156657 --- Comment #5 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Christian Dersch from comment #4) Thank you for your fast review Raphael :) (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #3) [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. ++ If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake. Please do so. The package contains a copy of the GPLv3+ in LICENXE.txt [?]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). ++ This is not fully clear. I don't understand why you use macros sometimes and sometimes not. See also my initial comments about that. What does consistently mean for you? Just as a warning to keep potential upwards compatibility if folder standards change or the like. I can change this if neccessary (you mean the sed command i think) I had another review in mind (indi-sx), so please explain where I miss usage of macros. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1149649] Review Request: tuxfootball - funny soccer game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149649 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156619] Review Request: python-tzlocal - tzinfo object for the local timezone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156619 --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- I can't see any updated package. Please be habitual with bumping release number. Generating new package and posting links of new SPEC and SRPM. We generally review SRPM which includes SPEC and not just SPEC. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156619] Review Request: python-tzlocal - tzinfo object for the local timezone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156619 --- Comment #4 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Don't forget to add changes information in a new Changelog entry. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156657] Review Request: indi-aagcloudwatcher - INDI driver for the AAG Cloud Watcher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156657 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- (In reply to Christian Dersch from comment #5) I had another review in mind (indi-sx), so please explain where I miss usage of macros. Yeah, I was confused too. Sorry for any misunderstanding. ACCEPT -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156619] Review Request: python-tzlocal - tzinfo object for the local timezone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156619 --- Comment #5 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com --- bumped release number: Spec URL: http://vps533.directvps.nl/python-tzlocal.spec SRPM URL: http://vps533.directvps.nl/python-tzlocal-1.1.2-2.fc20.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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156657] Review Request: indi-aagcloudwatcher - INDI driver for the AAG Cloud Watcher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156657 --- Comment #7 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com --- Thanks again 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156657] Review Request: indi-aagcloudwatcher - INDI driver for the AAG Cloud Watcher
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156657 Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: indi-aagcloudwatcher Short Description: INDI driver for the AAG Cloud Watcher Upstream URL: http://indilib.org/ Owners: lupinix Branches: f21 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659
--- Comment #6 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com ---
Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-sx.spec
SRPM URL:
https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-sx-0.9.9-2.20141025svn1784.fc20.src.rpm
Now using the %{_udevrulesdir} macro consistently.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1157150] New: Review Request: libatasmart - added patch for WD drives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157150 Bug ID: 1157150 Summary: Review Request: libatasmart - added patch for WD drives Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: alex.ploumis...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://users.uoi.gr/ch02499/fedora_stuff/libatasmart/libatasmart.spec SRPM URL: http://users.uoi.gr/ch02499/fedora_stuff/libatasmart/libatasmart-0.19-8.fc20.src.rpm Description: I have patched libatasmart with the patch from https://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=76719 in response to bug #921430. Fedora Account System Username: alexpl This is my first submission, so I need a sponsor. I have completed a successful scratch build in koji (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7941271) and I have also tested the package on my systems and so far everything runs fine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1157150] Review Request: libatasmart - added patch for WD drives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157150 Alexander Ploumistos alex.ploumis...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Version|rawhide |20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156619] Review Request: python-tzlocal - tzinfo object for the local timezone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156619 --- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- This looks good now :) Review: + is OK - is Needs Work + Package built successful in mock (f22 x86_64) - rpmlint on generated rpms gave output python-tzlocal.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tzinfo - tinfoil python-tzlocal.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tzinfo - tinfoil python3-tzlocal.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tzinfo - tinfoil python3-tzlocal.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C tzinfo object for the local timezone python3-tzlocal.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tzinfo - tinfoil python-tzlocal.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tzinfo - tinfoil python-tzlocal.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tzinfo - tinfoil 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. + Source verified with upstream as sha256sum srpm tarball: 4d9ddb8d5eab086e3a7c504c6e994ffa85df43e40da4d6be776218be051c677a upstream tarball: 4d9ddb8d5eab086e3a7c504c6e994ffa85df43e40da4d6be776218be051c677a + License is CCO and included in LICENSE.txt file + follow python packaging guidelines + rest also looks as per packaging guidelines. Suggestion: 1) Summary for main package python-tzlocal should be A Python module that tries to figure out what your local timezone is. This is a nice summary as can be seen on github page 2) %description should contain some more information like This Python module returns a tzinfo object with the local timezone information. It requires pytz, and returns pytz tzinfo objects. This module attempts to fix a glaring hole in pytz, that there is no way to get the local timezone information, unless you know the zoneinfo name. 3) use above for python3-tzlocal %description Fix above and for this if you want you don't need to bump release number and package will be ready to be 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1154743] Review Request: python-pretend - A library for stubbing in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154743 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Review: + is OK - is Needs Work + Package built successful in mock (f22 x86_64) + rpmlint on generated rpms gave output 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + Source verified with upstream as sha256sum srpm tarball: 930f2c1e18503e8f8c403abe2e02166c4a881941745147e712cdd4f49f3fb964 upstream tarball: 930f2c1e18503e8f8c403abe2e02166c4a881941745147e712cdd4f49f3fb964 + License is BSD and included in LICENSE.rst file + follow python packaging guidelines + rest also looks as per packaging guidelines. APPROVED this package. Note as you know you are not sponsored yet so you may want to wait here before going to add SCM git request for this package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1155403] Review Request: python-rauth - A Python library for OAuth 1.0/a, 2.0, and Ofly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155403
Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||piotr1...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com ---
Unoffcial review.
Overall:
Pass
Suggestions:
- Add CHANGELOG to %doc
- Could you also build for python3? The library supports python3 (I've
dowloaded the source and run the tests).
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. 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/python-rauth/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: 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 %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq,
[Bug 1155495] Review Request: python-yappi - Yet Another Python Profiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155495 Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||piotr1...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com --- Some comments: Errors: - spec filename does not match package name, rename yappi.spec to python-yappi.spec - Source0 url gives 404: https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/y/yappi/1d187cc9e455d3d11915da135937fe8bcf502c4b.tar.gz - No files markes as %doc. Add %doc README.md LICENSE to %files section - mock build fails missing BuildRequires. Add BuildRequires: python-setuptools Suggestions: - %description is a bit long and is more a motivation than description. - Could you add a python3 module? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156409] Review Request: python-roman - Integer to Roman numerals converter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156409
Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||d...@der-flo.net
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@der-flo.net
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Florian der-flo Lehner d...@der-flo.net ---
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.
[-]: 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 %doc.
[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. 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/flo/review/1156409-python-roman/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages,
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python3.4
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages,
/usr/lib/python3.4/site-packages/__pycache__, /usr/lib/python3.4
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-roman
[Bug 1157162] New: Review Request: badvpn - Peer-to-peer VPN solution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157162 Bug ID: 1157162 Summary: Review Request: badvpn - Peer-to-peer VPN solution Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: walter.p...@ymail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://pwalter.fedorapeople.org/badvpn.spec SRPM URL: https://pwalter.fedorapeople.org/badvpn-1.999.129-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: BadVPN is a layer 2 peer-to-peer VPN solution. Fedora Account System Username: pwalter koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7941894 This is my first package and I would need a sponsor. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1157162] Review Request: badvpn - Peer-to-peer VPN solution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157162 Pete Walter walter.p...@ymail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060519] Review Request: qm-dsp - Library for DSP and Music Informatics purposes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060519 František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(val...@civ.zcu.cz | |) | --- Comment #7 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz --- The new updated version: Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/qm-dsp-1.7-2/qm-dsp.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/qm-dsp-1.7-2/qm-dsp-1.7-2.fc22.src.rpm koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7941888 I sent email to upstream author at February, but vamp-plugins forum is probably preferred. I'll try to publish the patches there. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094015] Review Request: cwtex-q-fonts - a series of modern traditional Chinese fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094015 --- Comment #12 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Hi, Do you get time to review packages? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1152966] Review Request: indi-gphoto - INDI driver for many cameras using gPhoto
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152966 --- Comment #13 from Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi --- Good, but remember also to ship an update for the Fedora builds, this should not wait for upstream action... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1060520] Review Request: qm-vamp-plugins - Vamp audio feature extraction plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1060520 František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(val...@civ.zcu.cz | |) | --- Comment #2 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz --- New version: Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/qm-vamp-plugins-1.7-2/qm-vamp-plugins.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/qm-vamp-plugins-1.7-2/qm-vamp-plugins-1.7-2.fc22.src.rpm * Sat Oct 25 2014 František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz - 1.7-2 - Replace qm-dsp-devel for qm-dsp-static BR Otherwise looks good and when mixxx is run with VAMP_PATH=/usr/lib64/vamp/ the options Tempo and Beat Tracker appears in the list of beat analysers. I guess this means that the package functions as described:) Wow, so mixxx doesn't even to be recompiled to see the plugin work. :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1092828] Review Request: turses - A Twitter client for the console
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1092828 --- Comment #16 from Rino Rondan villadalm...@gmail.com --- I prepare turses 0.2.21 with older version of python-py when it will be ok, i will prepare new version for only Fedora 21. Regards! New specs and source for 0.2.21 of turses.. https://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/turses-0.2.21-1.fc20.src.rpm https://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/turses.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1155793] Review Request: Hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||methe...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com --- You should report the font problem upstream. The comment on licensing should be just above the license tag and not near files. Please fix the location of files. If they are arch dependent, they should go into /usr/lib or /usr/lib64. Use the appropriate rpm macro for that https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros You should validate the desktop file https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files You should include appdata and make sure to include screenshots and an appropriate icon with high resolution as described in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Guidelines/Applications_and_Launchers I also recommend running fedora-review against your srpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1138455] Review Request: rubygem-occi-core - OCCI toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138455 --- Comment #1 from František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz --- Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/rubygem-occi-core-4.2.17-1/rubygem-occi-core.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/rubygem-occi-core-4.2.17-1/rubygem-occi-core-4.2.17-1.fc22.src.rpm koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7942110 * Sat Oct 25 2014 František Dvořák val...@civ.zcu.cz - 4.2.17-1 - Update to 4.2.17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|projects...@smart.ms Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- Taken. Should not show any great issues due to quite similiarity to the other review of indi-cloud thingy. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1144660] Review Request: nodejs-strscanner - Lexical string analysis for javascript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1144660 --- Comment #3 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- Upstream has committed now MIT license text file which I have used as SOURCE1. Updated the package but no release bumped as its not needed. Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/nodejs-strscanner.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/nodejs-strscanner-0.0.8-1.fc21.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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1152966] Review Request: indi-gphoto - INDI driver for many cameras using gPhoto
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152966 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- indi-gphoto-0.9.9-3.20141015svn1783.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/indi-gphoto-0.9.9-3.20141015svn1783.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1151842] Review Request: apx - QIX clone, cut into and claim the square area
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151842 Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com changed: What|Removed |Added Docs Contact|e...@mayorgalinux.com | Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|e...@mayorgalinux.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1155403] Review Request: python-rauth - A Python library for OAuth 1.0/a, 2.0, and Ofly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155403 Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||e...@mayorgalinux.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|e...@mayorgalinux.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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1155403] Review Request: python-rauth - A Python library for OAuth 1.0/a, 2.0, and Ofly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155403 Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com --- Please ask upstream to include the tests. Good review, Piotr. Thanks! As it's OK... PACKAGE APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156658] Review Request: libmatemixer - Mixer library for MATE desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156658
leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com ---
Package approved
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
LGPL, GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated. 6 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/leigh/1156658-libmatemixer/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/include/mate-mixer
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/mate-mixer,
/usr/share/gtk-doc/html, /usr/share/gtk-doc
[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]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest
[Bug 1156658] Review Request: libmatemixer - Mixer library for MATE desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156658 --- Comment #2 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de --- Thank you Leigh for approving the package. As per irc conversation, i will fix the unowned directory issue before uploading to git. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1152966] Review Request: indi-gphoto - INDI driver for many cameras using gPhoto
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152966 --- Comment #15 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com --- Done -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156658] Review Request: libmatemixer - Mixer library for MATE desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156658 Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Wolfgang Ulbrich chat-to...@raveit.de --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libmatemixer Short Description: Mixer library for MATE desktop Upstream URL: http://git.mate-desktop.org/libmatemixer/ Owners: raveit65 Branches: f20 f21 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156658] Review Request: libmatemixer - Mixer library for MATE desktop
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156658 leigh scott leigh123li...@googlemail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1146928] Review Request: ansiblelint - Checks playbooks for practices and behaviour that could potentially be improved
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146928 Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||moc...@hotmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|moc...@hotmail.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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1146928] Review Request: ansiblelint - Checks playbooks for practices and behaviour that could potentially be improved
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146928 Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1146929 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146929 [Bug 1146929] Review Request: ansibleinventorygrapher - Creates graphs representing ansible inventory -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1146929] Review Request: ansibleinventorygrapher - Creates graphs representing ansible inventory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146929 Mosaab Alzoubi moc...@hotmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||moc...@hotmail.com Depends On||1146928 Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|moc...@hotmail.com Flags||fedora-review? Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146928 [Bug 1146928] Review Request: ansiblelint - Checks playbooks for practices and behaviour that could potentially be improved -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1058765] Review Request: mono-cecil - Library to generate and inspect programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058765 Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(wi...@redhat.com) --- Comment #7 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- So once again, after a long time: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hroncok/SPECS/c3a1defc8d7625aab20e36721688ae6dbff3e633/mono-cecil.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/mono-cecil-0.9.5-3.20140924git6d1b7d0.fc20.src.rpm It's updated. I definitely don't run test, because I was not bale to do that sorry. Will, still doing the review? 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1058765] Review Request: mono-cecil - Library to generate and inspect programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058765 --- Comment #8 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- s/bale/able/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1152966] Review Request: indi-gphoto - INDI driver for many cameras using gPhoto
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152966 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- indi-gphoto-0.9.9-4.20141015svn1783.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/indi-gphoto-0.9.9-4.20141015svn1783.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1157179] New: Review Request: log4j-jsonevent-layout - Layout for log4j that generates logstash json_event formatted data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157179 Bug ID: 1157179 Summary: Review Request: log4j-jsonevent-layout - Layout for log4j that generates logstash json_event formatted data Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: val...@civ.zcu.cz QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/log4j-jsonevent-layout-1.7-1/log4j-jsonevent-layout.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/log4j-jsonevent-layout-1.7-1/log4j-jsonevent-layout-1.7-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: This library provides layout for log4j that generates logs in JSON format. The format is compatible with json_event structure from logstash. Fedora Account System Username: valtri koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7942344 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156409] Review Request: python-roman - Integer to Roman numerals converter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156409
Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||piotr1...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com ---
Unofficial review:
package builds, installs and works good.
suggestions:
remove trailing whitespace on line 19
module has no documentation, add CHANGES.txt to %doc
license not included as a separate file, you SHOULD ask upstream to include it.
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.
[-]: 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 %doc.
[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. 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/python-roman/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-roman
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
[Bug 1147681] Review Request: python-goto - Python implementation of goto and comefrom statements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147681 Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||piotr1...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com --- from the modules website: The goto module was an April Fool's joke, published on 1st April 2004. Yes, it works, but it's a joke nevertheless. Please don't use it in real code! The author advises not to use the module, do we really want package this in Fedora? Is there software actually using this? If python3 is not supported, you could leave out all python3 conditionals. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1058765] Review Request: mono-cecil - Library to generate and inspect programs and libraries in the ECMA CIL form
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058765 --- Comment #9 from Miro Hrončok mhron...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hroncok/SPECS/master/mono-cecil.spec SRPM URL: https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/mono-cecil-0.9.5-3.20140924git6d1b7d0.fc20.src.rpm After removing bundled nunit, I had to patch the sln file not to build the tests -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156492] Review Request: golang-github-cpuguy83-go-md2man - Process markdown into manpages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156492 --- Comment #2 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com --- Created attachment 950698 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=950698action=edit changes to spec file -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156492] Review Request: golang-github-cpuguy83-go-md2man - Process markdown into manpages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156492 --- Comment #1 from Jan Chaloupka jchal...@redhat.com --- $ rpmlint *.spec golang-github-cpuguy83-go-md2man.spec:40: W: setup-not-quiet 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. package does not BuildRequires golang(code.google.com/p/go.net/html). go-md2man-1]$ ggi bytes flag fmt github.com/cpuguy83/go-md2man/mangen github.com/russross/blackfriday io/ioutil os strings only github.com/russross/blackfriday. %check section is not needed, there are not test files. Otherwise it looks good to 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1146928] Review Request: ansiblelint - Checks playbooks for practices and behaviour that could potentially be improved
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146928
Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||piotr1...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com ---
Unofficial review:
builds, installs works good!
Description is not in American English 'behaviour' should be 'behavior'
suggestion:
remove trailing whitespace on line 36
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.
[-]: 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 %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
MIT/X11 (BSD like), Unknown or generated. 3 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/piotr/rpmbuild/ansiblelint/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= 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.
requested at: https://github.com/willthames/ansible-lint/issues/25
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]:
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659
Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
++ = Remarks
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[?]: Package contains no static executables.
++ {*}Suggestion: Clean up CMakeLists.txt for specifical Fedora usage.
IMHO one general Makefile (or cmake in our case) for all thinkable platforms
is not useful, it includes also stuff for unsupported platforms and could pull
in bugs. That should be prevented as best as possible, so remove dead code.
Quite similiar logic to bundled libs, maybe compare analogues to guidelines.
I'll attach a clean CMakeLists.txt and a modified spec file, please take a
look.
[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]: 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 %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), MIT/X11 (BSD like),
Unknown or generated. 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/build/fedora-review/indi-sx/licensecheck.txt
++ OK, MIT is compatible to GPLv2+
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
++ see above {*}
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
++ I don't have the time to read the code details, besides am no owner of any
INDI devices.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
++ Original CMakeLists.txt support ARM only for Debian. Please ask upstream
about official
Fedora/ARM support.
[-]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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:
[?]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
Note: Found : Packager: Raphael Groner
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #950710||review? Flags|| --- Comment #9 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- Created attachment 950710 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=950710action=edit CMakeLists.txt with fedora specific cleanup I tried to convert it to a patch but without success. Maybe you can do it? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 --- Comment #10 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- Created attachment 950711 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=950711action=edit spec with patched cmake -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659
--- Comment #11 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com ---
First, thank you for reviewing the package :) Now lets go to the details
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #8)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
++ = Remarks
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[?]: Package contains no static executables.
++ {*}Suggestion: Clean up CMakeLists.txt for specifical Fedora usage.
IMHO one general Makefile (or cmake in our case) for all thinkable platforms
is not useful, it includes also stuff for unsupported platforms and could
pull
in bugs. That should be prevented as best as possible, so remove dead code.
Quite similiar logic to bundled libs, maybe compare analogues to guidelines.
I'll attach a clean CMakeLists.txt and a modified spec file, please take a
look.
I will *not* maintain a CMakeLists.txt specific to Fedora. It is not neccessary
here. And cmake means cross-platform make ;) I agree with you that some
cleanups in this file should be done. But this is not the place and *no* Fedora
specific cleanups. I will manage this with upstream in general.
[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]: 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 %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), MIT/X11 (BSD like),
Unknown or generated. 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/build/fedora-review/indi-sx/licensecheck.txt
++ OK, MIT is compatible to GPLv2+
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
++ see above {*}
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
++ I don't have the time to read the code details, besides am no owner of
any INDI devices.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[?]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
++ Original CMakeLists.txt support ARM only for Debian. Please ask upstream
about official
Fedora/ARM support.
You are wrong. What you mean with Debian ARM only is the CPack stuff. But this
doesn't matter anything here. We do not use CPack for packaging here ;) And
tell my any reason why this code should only work on Debian as it is compiled
from source.
[-]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]:
[Bug 1103554] Review Request: cppcms - a Free High Performance Web Development Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1103554 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |CANTFIX Last Closed||2014-10-25 16:59:34 --- Comment #32 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- Due to unclear reasoning for the bundled stuff (booster/boost, json2, etc.), I don't see any possible solution for the short run. Unfortunately, I have to decline my review request till there's a working and easy fix found. Thanks for your help. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659
--- Comment #12 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com ---
Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-sx.spec
SRPM URL:
https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/indi/indi-sx-0.9.9-3.20141025svn1784.fc20.src.rpm
Removed the %{checkout} macro from changelog, was a bad idea :(
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156967] A bash implementation for 2048 for bash.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156967 --- Comment #2 from Rino Rondan villadalm...@gmail.com --- https://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/bash2048-1.0-2.fc20.src.rpm https://villadalmine.fedorapeople.org/bash2048.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156659] Review Request: indi-sx - INDI driver providing support for Starlight Xpress devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156659 --- Comment #13 from Christian Dersch chrisder...@gmail.com --- New Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7942652 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1146928] Review Request: ansiblelint - Checks playbooks for practices and behaviour that could potentially be improved
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146928 --- Comment #3 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com --- missing requirement ansible, please add: Requires: ansible -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1146929] Review Request: ansibleinventorygrapher - Creates graphs representing ansible inventory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146929
Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||piotr1...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com ---
Unofficial review:
Two issues found:
- Not latest version, upgrade to 1.0.1
- Missing requirement ansible: add Requires: ansible
suggestion:
- delete trailing whitespace at line 36
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.
[-]: 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 %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v3 or later), Unknown or generated. 1 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/piotr/rpmbuild/ansibleinventorygrapher/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: 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).
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= 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.
This seems to be fixed in master
[!]: 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should
[Bug 1155793] Review Request: Hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793
--- Comment #2 from nobra...@gmail.com ---
Spec URL: cthugha.org/fedora/hyperrogue.spec
SRPM URL: cthugha.org/fedora/hyperrogue-4.4-2.fc21.src.rpm
Hi,
Thank you very much for your review :)
I will report the font problem shortly.
Comment displaced.
%{_libdir} used in place of %{_datadir}.
For desktop file, guidelines says one MUST run desktop-file-install (in
%install) OR desktop-file-validate (in %check or %install) . I believe that
desktop-file-validate is not necessary here, because I use
desktop-file-install.
I've got a problem with the appdata: The only icon size 96*96 px...
And, a last idiot question: I will just write the hyperrogue.appadata.xml, put
it as a source in the spec, and install it in %{_datadir}/appdata/ ?
Thank you again,
Alexandre
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141494] Review Request: python-flask-whooshalchemy - Whoosh extension to Flask/SQLAlchemy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141494
Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||piotr1...@gmail.com
--- Comment #6 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com ---
Unofficial review:
Fail:
- files in %files section are not explicit enough, this resulting in marking
directories as owned which are owned by other packages. Change the following
lines:
%files
%{python2_sitelib}/*
into:
%{python2_sitelib}/flask_whooshalchemy.py*
%{python2_sitelib}/%{mod_name}-%{version}-py2.?.egg-info
and
%files -n python3-flask-whooshalchemy
%{python3_sitelib}/*
into:
%{python3_sitelib}/flask_whooshalchemy.py
%{python3_sitelib}/__pycache__/flask_whooshalchemy.cpython-33.py*
%{python3_sitelib}/%{mod_name}-%{version}-py3.?.egg-info
- delete shipped egg.info, add following lines to %prep:
# Delete upstream supplied egg-info
rm -rf *.egg-info
suggestion:
- remove trailing whitespace at line 77
- %check is missing. I've run python setup.py test on my machine and it fails.
Could you check out why?
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/piotr/rpmbuild/python-flask-
whooshalchemy/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.3/site-
packages/__pycache__(python3-setuptools, python3-flask-whooshalchemy,
python3-libs)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 6 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 %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the
[Bug 1154743] Review Request: python-pretend - A library for stubbing in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154743 --- Comment #5 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com --- Great!!! I've started a couple more reviews, see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141494 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146929 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146928 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147681 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156409 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155403 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155495 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1155793] Review Request: Hyperrogue - An SDL roguelike in a non-euclidean world
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155793 --- Comment #3 from Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com --- right, just write the appdata, include it in source, install it in the appropriate location and you are done. example, http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/gnome-photos.git/tree/gnome-photos.spec If you don.t have a high resolution icon, ask upstream to provide one for you. Also try running fedora-review against your srpm. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 701812] Review Request: brutalchess - Impressive 3D chess game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701812 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|projects...@smart.ms Whiteboard||NotReady AwaitingSubmitter Flags||needinfo?(timur.kristof@gma ||il.com) --- Comment #10 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- (In reply to Timur Kristóf from comment #7) Hi Raphael, Unfortunately I no longer have the time to do this. So feel free to take it. You can use my own packaging, the only issue with the package was the non-free fonts. The solution is to exclude the fonts included in the game and patch it to use something else. If I recall correctly, the Debian guys already had a patch for that, so you can try to use that patch. Cheers, Timur Hi Timur, could you please close this bug as WONTFIX and with FE-DEADREVIEW as blocker? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Special_blocker_tickets I would like to clone and start a new review process with me as the new packager. Then maybe feel free to switch into the reviewer role. Thanks, R. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094015] Review Request: cwtex-q-fonts - a series of modern traditional Chinese fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094015 --- Comment #13 from Cheng-Chia Tseng pswo10...@gmail.com --- Hi Parag, I was busy translating GNOME, Fedora and Blender for last few months and could not find much time to review packages. I will try to review some in the following weeks. Sorry for taking you so long. :P -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1146928] Review Request: ansiblelint - Checks playbooks for practices and behaviour that could potentially be improved
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146928 --- Comment #4 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- Thanks Piotr for above review. I have fixed the reported issues but kept same release number. Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/ansiblelint.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/ansiblelint-1.0.2-1.fc21.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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1146929] Review Request: ansibleinventorygrapher - Creates graphs representing ansible inventory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1146929 --- Comment #3 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- Thanks Piotr for above review. I have fixed the reported issues. Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/ansibleinventorygrapher.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/ansibleinventorygrapher-1.0.1-1.fc21.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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1154743] Review Request: python-pretend - A library for stubbing in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154743 --- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- That's nice!! I have sponsored you now in packager group :) you can follow the package review process as given in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors from step 7 here. Keep reviewing packages as we are short of package reviewers in Fedora. See list for packages to review http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156619] Review Request: python-tzlocal - tzinfo object for the local timezone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156619 --- Comment #7 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Please provide updated SPEC and SRPM links here so I can approve this package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1094015] Review Request: cwtex-q-fonts - a series of modern traditional Chinese fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094015 --- Comment #14 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Thanks for the update on this review. We can wait. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1157201] New: Review Request: python-flask-imgur - Upload images straight to Imgur in your Flask app. this is my first package, i need a Sponsor.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157201 Bug ID: 1157201 Summary: Review Request: python-flask-imgur - Upload images straight to Imgur in your Flask app. this is my first package, i need a Sponsor. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pyn...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://pynash.fedorapeople.org/rpms/flask_imgur/python-flask-imgur.spec SRPM URL: https://pynash.fedorapeople.org/rpms/flask_imgur/python-flask-imgur-0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This is simple flask extension allowing uploading images straight to Imgur image hosting service. Fedora Account System Username: pynash -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1157201] Review Request: python-flask-imgur - Upload images straight to Imgur in your Flask app. this is my first package, i need a Sponsor.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157201 Walter D. Vargas pyn...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python-flask-imgur - |python-flask-imgur - Upload |Upload images straight to |images straight to Imgur in |Imgur in your Flask app.|your Flask app. this is my |this is my first package, i |first package, i need a |need a Sponsor.|Sponsor. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1154213] Review Request: python-structlog - Painless structural logging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154213 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1154743] Review Request: python-pretend - A library for stubbing in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154743 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1154218] Review Request: graphite-api - Graphite-web, without the interface. Just the rendering HTTP API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154218 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||panem...@gmail.com Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1156619] Review Request: python-tzlocal - tzinfo object for the local timezone
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156619 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1157201] Review Request: python-flask-imgur - Upload images straight to Imgur in your Flask app.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157201 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||panem...@gmail.com Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python-flask-imgur - Upload |python-flask-imgur - Upload |images straight to Imgur in |images straight to Imgur in |your Flask app. this is my |your Flask app. |first package, i need a | |Sponsor.| Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1157201] Review Request: python-flask-imgur - Upload images straight to Imgur in your Flask app.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157201 --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Hi Walter, We have this process http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group to get sponsored in packager group. Can you either submit few more packages and/or some (3-5) package reviews? This is needed to make sure package submitter understands packaging well and follows as per fedora packaging guidelines. Please go through links 1) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process 2) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines 3) To find package already submitted for review check http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ 4) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines 5) https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ this is fedora-review tool to help review packages in fedora. If you got any questions please ask :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
