[Bug 1365589] Review Request: rubygem-activemodel-serializers-xml - XML serialization for Active Model objects and Active Record models

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365589



--- Comment #6 from Vít Ondruch  ---
Thx for a review and processing the 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1365589] Review Request: rubygem-activemodel-serializers-xml - XML serialization for Active Model objects and Active Record models

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365589



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-activemodel-serializers-xml-1.0.1-1.fc25 has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-b25c330fbe

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1365589] Review Request: rubygem-activemodel-serializers-xml - XML serialization for Active Model objects and Active Record models

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365589

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1364723] Review Request: python-fuzzyfinder - Fuzzy Finder implemented in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364723



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-fuzzyfinder-1.0.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ad7108fd9f

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1342749] Review Request: wildfly-core - The core runtime of WildFly

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342749

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
wildfly-core-2.1.0-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-758328f6f8

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1365399] Review Request: python-aaargh - An astonishingly awesome application argument helper

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365399



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-aaargh-0.7.1-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c644fccf82

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1361687] Review Request: python-isort - A Python utility / library to sort Python imports

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1361687



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-isort-4.2.5-5.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-1cd9b32e27

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1365745] Review Request: fwknop-gui - GUI client for Fwknop

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365745



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
fwknop-gui-1.3-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-85b83e5cb8

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350143] Review Request: fmt - Small, safe and fast formating library for C++

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350143



--- Comment #8 from Dave Johansen  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #7)
> > > > The updated .spec file with the fixes is at:
> > > > https://daveisfera.fedorapeople.org/fmt_3.0.0/fmt.spec
> > > 
> > > Please, include these header files
> > > 
> > > %exclude %{_includedir}/fmt/ostream.h
> > > %exclude %{_includedir}/fmt/posix.h
> > > %exclude %{_includedir}/fmt/time.h
> > >
> > > I need them for packaging other software.
> 
> > Are these useful without the .cc files?
> 
> I don't know.
> 
> > My initial thought would be that if I'm going to package the "header only" 
> > files that it should be in a separate package.
> 
> Okay.

I'm pretty sure that they're not, so I made a fmt-static package to package all
of the header only files. I posted on the packaging mailing list to make sure
that this is the right way to handle this (
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packag...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/SD7SZFA5EOWFXAYJ2WPBDEI5BOTXN4N6/
).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1361409] Review Request: python-pytest-xdist - py.test xdist plugin for distributed testing and loop-on-failing modes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1361409



--- Comment #2 from Scott Talbert  ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1)
> I think you can remove the references to missing functionality on Windows ;)
> You should also wrap %description to 80 columns.
> 
> .egg-info doesn't have to be removed.
> 
> In Summary: I'd say change "py.test xdist plugin" to "py.test plugin" for
> better flow.
> 

Thanks for the review on this and timeout.  :)  Good comments - I'll fix up
those issues upon import to dist-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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl



--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
The spec file and srpm should be available directly, so that automatic tools
like fedora-review can download it without issues. Please, just avoid sf.net.
If you don't have any public web space available, you can ask for fp.o account
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/fedorapeople.org).

Summary should not repeat the package name, it should say what the package is
in a few words. The %description should describe the functionality in two-three
paragraphs. Also not everybody knows what TSS/TCG/TPM is, so the abbrevs should
be expanded. See 'rpm -qi python' for a reasonable template.

It's good practice to explicitly list files in %{_bindir} and %{_libdir},
instead of using a wide pattern like %{_bindir}/*.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1346243] Review Request: execdb - Execution status database for Taskotron

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1346243

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl



--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Please provide a description. Your description is a good Summary, but too short
for a %description.

%py2_build

%py2_install

Those dots at the end look strange (cp conf/execdb.wsgi
%{buildroot}%{_datadir}/execdb/.).

Is this is a server, does it need a service 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1238385] Review Request: mingw-qtspell - Spell checking for Qt text widgets

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238385



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
mingw-qtspell-0.8.1-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1361340] Review Request: python-fadvise - Python interface to posix_fadvise(2)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1361340

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Why don't you just build from the github tarball? That's simpler than mucking
around with pypi and a separate license file
[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Git_Tags].

It isn't strictly required, but it's considered good practice to specify more
specific patterns in %files:
%{python2_sitearch}/%{srcname}/
%{python2_sitearch}/%{srcname}-egg.info...

I would be much much better to not install a private module in the top level
python namespace: /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/_fadvise.so should become
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fadvise/_fadvise.so. Of course this is an
upstream issue, but maybe you could try to work with them to fix this.
Actually patching this is trivial:
1. move the .so file
2. change from _fadvise import ... → from ._fadvise import ...

There is no man page, and pyadvise --help isn't exactly verbose. It would be
nice to extend the description in --help.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1361410] Review Request: python-pytest-timeout - py.test plugin to abort hanging tests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1361410

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
%description should be wrapped to 80 columns (it's currently a big jagged).

.spec file has some trailing whitespace.

.egg-info doesn't need to be removed in %prep.

It isn't strictly required, but it's considered good practice to specify more
specific patterns in %files:

%{python2_sitearch}/%{srcname}/
%{python2_sitearch}/%{srcname}-egg.info...

+ package name is OK
+ latest version
+ license is acceptable (MIT)
+ license is specified correctly
+ builds and installs OK
+ modern python packaging template is used
+ R/P/BR look OK
+ %python_provide macro is used
+ no scriptlets present or necessary
+ rpmlint only bogus warnings about spelling

Package is APPROVED.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1361409] Review Request: python-pytest-xdist - py.test xdist plugin for distributed testing and loop-on-failing modes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1361409

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
I think you can remove the references to missing functionality on Windows ;)
You should also wrap %description to 80 columns.

.egg-info doesn't have to be removed.

In Summary: I'd say change "py.test xdist plugin" to "py.test plugin" for
better flow.

+ package name is OK
+ license is accpetable (MIT)
+ license is specified correctly
+ modern python packaging template is used
+ %python_provide is used
+ no scriptlets present or necessary
+ P/R/BR look OK
+ builds and install OK
+ latest version
+ rpmlint and fedora-review have nothing useful to say

Package is APPROVED.

Thanks for packaging this, I wanted to use this a few times :)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1360394] Review Request: python-pytest-watch - Local continuous test runner with pytest and watchdog

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360394

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
 Depends On||1360383
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Again, %sum macro is not necessary.

Again, .egg-info doesn't have to be deleted.

+ package name is OK
+ license is acceptable (MIT)
+ license is specified correctly
+ provides/requires/buildrequires look OK
  (apart from missing python-watchdog)
+ %python_provide macro is used
+ modern python packaging template is used
+ no scriptlets present or necessary

Scripts are symlinked in the opposite way to what should be:
IS: ptw ← ptw-2 ← ptw-2.7
SHOULD BE: ptw → ptw-2 → ptw-2.7
(See /usr/bin/py.test* for an example.)


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360383
[Bug 1360383] python-watchdog is missing some requires
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1360365] Review Request: python-pytest-mock - Thin-wrapper around the mock package for easier use with py.test

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360365

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
%{sum} macro is not necessary, you can write Summary: normally first time, and
then use Summary: %{summary} for the subsequent ones.

You don't need to actually delete .egg-info.

+ package name is OK
+ license is acceptable (MIT)
+ license is specified correctly
+ standard python packaging is used
+ python_provide is used
+ no scriptlets present or necessary
- builds and installs OK
? P/R/BR look OK

%check fails in mock, looks like you need BR's on mock too.

- Captured stderr call
-
nomatch: '*"mock" fixture has been deprecated*'
and: u''
 test_mocker_aliases[MagicMock]

name = 'MagicMock'
@pytest.mark.parametrize('name', ['MagicMock', 'PropertyMock', 'Mock',
'call', 'ANY'])
def test_mocker_aliases(name):
>   from pytest_mock import mock_module, MockFixture
test_pytest_mock.py:137: 
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
import inspect
import sys

import pytest

if sys.version_info >= (3, 3): # pragma: no cover
import unittest.mock as mock_module
else:
>   import mock as mock_module
E   ImportError: No module named mock
pytest_mock.py:9: ImportError

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1348146] Review Request: aries-proxy-impl - Apache Aries Proxy Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348146

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
+ package name is OK
+ license is acceptable (ASL-2.0)
+ license is speciefied correctly
+ package builds and installs OK
+ requires/provides/buildrequires look OK
+ no scriptlets present or necessary
+ standard maven build is used
+ rpmlint is happy (only bogus no-documentation warning)
+ fedora-review shows nothing important

Package is APPROVED.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047



--- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
> # Copyright (C) IBM Corp. 2015,2016
please, no ;)

> BuildRoot:%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
not needed

> BuildArch:x86_64 ppc64
it doesn't build for others?

> make -f makefile.fedora
missing %{?_smp_mflags}

> rm -fr %{buildroot}
not needed

> %clean
> [ "%{buildroot}" != "/" ] && rm -rf %{buildroot}
don't do that

> %defattr(-,root,root)
not needed

> %{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}
not needed

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1347980] Review Request: aries-proxy-api - Apache Aries Proxy API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347980



--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #2)

> Package is APPROVED.

Thanks very much for the review!

> It *would* be nice to move %description to Summary, and provide a bit longer
> description what the package actually does in %description.

any suggestion regarding the %description is well accepted

create new SCM requests:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7145
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7146

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1347980] Review Request: aries-proxy-api - Apache Aries Proxy API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347980

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
+ license is acceptable (ASL 2.0)
+ license is specified correctly
+ package name is OK
+ package builds and installs correctly
+ no scriptlets present or necessary
+ standard maven build macros are used
+ provides/requires/buildrequires look OK
+ rpmlint is happy (on warning about missing documentation, but there's
-javadoc)
+ fedora-review is happy (I won't paste the full output here, there's little of
interest)

Package is APPROVED.

It *would* be nice to move %description to Summary, and provide a bit longer
description what the package actually does in %description.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1238385] Review Request: mingw-qtspell - Spell checking for Qt text widgets

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238385

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-08-10 19:23:45



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1238385] Review Request: mingw-qtspell - Spell checking for Qt text widgets

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238385



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
mingw-qtspell-0.8.1-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1347976] Review Request: aries-blueprint-annotation-api - Apache Aries Blueprint Annotation API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347976



--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo  ---
Thanks very much for the review!

create new SCM requests:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7143
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7144

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1347976] Review Request: aries-blueprint-annotation-api - Apache Aries Blueprint Annotation API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347976

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Jerry James  ---
I see no issues, so this package is APPROVED.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1347976] Review Request: aries-blueprint-annotation-api - Apache Aries Blueprint Annotation API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347976



--- Comment #4 from Jerry James  ---
Package Review
==

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

= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
 Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It
 is pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
 subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
 when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
 utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

= 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.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[!]: %check 

[Bug 1347976] Review Request: aries-blueprint-annotation-api - Apache Aries Blueprint Annotation API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347976

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #3 from Jerry James  ---
I will take this review.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1347975] Review Request: aries-quiesce-api - Apache Aries Quiesce API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347975



--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo  ---
Thanks for the review!

create new SCM requests:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7141
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7142

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1347975] Review Request: aries-quiesce-api - Apache Aries Quiesce API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347975

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Jerry James  ---
I see no blocking issues, so this package is APPROVED.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1347975] Review Request: aries-quiesce-api - Apache Aries Quiesce API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347975



--- Comment #4 from Jerry James  ---
Package Review
==

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

= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
 Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It
 is pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
 subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
 when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
 utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

= 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.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[!]: %check 

[Bug 1347977] Review Request: aries-blueprint-parser - Apache Aries Blueprint Parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347977



--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo  ---
Thanks for the review!

create new SCM requests:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7139
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7140

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1347976] Review Request: aries-blueprint-annotation-api - Apache Aries Blueprint Annotation API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347976



--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo  ---
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/aries-blueprint-annotation-api.spec
SRPM URL:
https://gil.fedorapeople.org/aries-blueprint-annotation-api-1.0.1-1.fc24.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1347975] Review Request: aries-quiesce-api - Apache Aries Quiesce API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347975



--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo  ---
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/aries-quiesce-api.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/aries-quiesce-api-1.0.0-1.fc24.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1347977] Review Request: aries-blueprint-parser - Apache Aries Blueprint Parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347977



--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #3)
> Issues
> ==
> - The URLs in this bug point to the noarch.rpm instead of the src.rpm.  I
>   guessed the correct URL, but this breaks fedora-review -b .
Sorry,

Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/aries-blueprint-parser.spec
SRPM URL:
https://gil.fedorapeople.org/aries-blueprint-parser-1.4.0-1.fc24.src.rpm

> - No build logs are visible.  Instead, all I see is this:
> 
> Executing: xmvn --batch-mode --offline -Dproject.build.sourceEncoding=UTF-8
> verify org.fedoraproject.xmvn:xmvn-mojo:install
> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-javadoc-plugin:aggregate
> org.fedoraproject.xmvn:xmvn-mojo:builddep
> ['xmvn', '--batch-mode', '--offline',
> '-Dproject.build.sourceEncoding=UTF-8', 'verify',
> 'org.fedoraproject.xmvn:xmvn-mojo:install',
> 'org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-javadoc-plugin:aggregate',
> 'org.fedoraproject.xmvn:xmvn-mojo:builddep']
> SLF4J: Failed to load class "org.slf4j.impl.StaticLoggerBinder".
> SLF4J: Defaulting to no-operation (NOP) logger implementation
> SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#StaticLoggerBinder for further
> details.
> 
>   Since slf4j is not mentioned anywhere in this project, does this mean that
>   something in the maven stack is missing a dependency?
is caused by a missing build dep: xmvn

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047

l...@us.ibm.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||l...@us.ibm.com



--- Comment #1 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
Here is the rpmlint output:


$ rpmlint tss2.spec ../SRPMS/*.rpm ../RPMS/*/*.rpm
tss2.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ibmtpm20tss/files/ibmtss713.tar HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
tss2.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ibmtpm20tss/files/ibmtss713.tar HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
tss2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tss -> ts, toss, ass
tss2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tss -> ts, toss,
ass
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1347977] Review Request: aries-blueprint-parser - Apache Aries Blueprint Parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347977



--- Comment #3 from Jerry James  ---
Issues
==
- The URLs in this bug point to the noarch.rpm instead of the src.rpm.  I
  guessed the correct URL, but this breaks fedora-review -b .

- No build logs are visible.  Instead, all I see is this:

Executing: xmvn --batch-mode --offline -Dproject.build.sourceEncoding=UTF-8
verify org.fedoraproject.xmvn:xmvn-mojo:install
org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-javadoc-plugin:aggregate
org.fedoraproject.xmvn:xmvn-mojo:builddep
['xmvn', '--batch-mode', '--offline', '-Dproject.build.sourceEncoding=UTF-8',
'verify', 'org.fedoraproject.xmvn:xmvn-mojo:install',
'org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-javadoc-plugin:aggregate',
'org.fedoraproject.xmvn:xmvn-mojo:builddep']
SLF4J: Failed to load class "org.slf4j.impl.StaticLoggerBinder".
SLF4J: Defaulting to no-operation (NOP) logger implementation
SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#StaticLoggerBinder for further
details.

  Since slf4j is not mentioned anywhere in this project, does this mean that
  something in the maven stack is missing a dependency?

Package Review
==

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

= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
 Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It
 is pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
 subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
 when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new 

[Bug 1364605] Review Request: gap-pkg-hap - Homological Algebra Programming for GAP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364605

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: gcc
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
 IGNORE
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
  in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
  for the package is included in %license.
  Note: License file copyright.gap is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
 IGNORE

= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 76 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1364605-gap-pkg-
 hap/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: 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]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: 

[Bug 1347977] Review Request: aries-blueprint-parser - Apache Aries Blueprint Parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347977

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Jerry James  ---
I see no blocking issues, so this package is APPROVED.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] New: Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047

Bug ID: 1366047
   Summary: Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: l...@us.ibm.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/ibmtpm20tss/files/NotForUsers_FedoraSourceRpm/tss2.spec
SRPM URL:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/ibmtpm20tss/files/NotForUsers_FedoraSourceRpm/tss2-713-1.el6.src.rpm
Description: IBM's TCG Software Stack for TPM 2.0 and related utilities
Fedora Account System Username: l...@us.ibm.com
Koji Build:  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15196378
This is my first package and I 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366047] Review Request: tss2 - IBM's TSS 2.0

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366047

l...@us.ibm.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1361695] Review Request: gap-pkg-ace - Advanced Coset Enumerator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1361695

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: gcc
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
 IGNORE

= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 57 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1361695
 -gap-pkg-ace/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in gap-pkg-
 ace-doc , gap-pkg-ace-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text 

[Bug 804125] Review Request: rdkit - A toolkit for cheminformatics and machine learning

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=804125



--- Comment #64 from Paul Emsley  ---
(In reply to Gianluca Sforna from comment #63)

> does anyone know if it is
> possible to use pg_regress on the buildsystem chroot?

I do not know if it's possible.  It doesn't seem like a popular thing to want
to do.
I'd say that it is (very) esoteric.  Are you sure that you need to run the
testPgSQL test?  It seems to me more of a test of your database configuration
skills than of RDKit features. 

Skip the test?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1361695] Review Request: gap-pkg-ace - Advanced Coset Enumerator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1361695

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review+  |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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1364605] Review Request: gap-pkg-hap - Homological Algebra Programming for GAP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364605

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||punto...@libero.it
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it
  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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1361695] Review Request: gap-pkg-ace - Advanced Coset Enumerator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1361695

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||punto...@libero.it
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it
  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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1347975] Review Request: aries-quiesce-api - Apache Aries Quiesce API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347975

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 from Jerry James  ---
I will take this review.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1347977] Review Request: aries-blueprint-parser - Apache Aries Blueprint Parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347977

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 from Jerry James  ---
I will take this review.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1365399] Review Request: python-aaargh - An astonishingly awesome application argument helper

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365399



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-aaargh-0.7.1-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ef25ffb8cc

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1365745] Review Request: fwknop-gui - GUI client for Fwknop

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365745



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
fwknop-gui-1.3-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a9d855e173

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366028] New: Review Request: python-flask-migrate - SQLAlchemy database migrations for Flask applications using Alembic

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366028

Bug ID: 1366028
   Summary: Review Request: python-flask-migrate - SQLAlchemy
database migrations for Flask applications using
Alembic
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: rb...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org




Spec URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-flask-migrate.spec
SRPM URL:
http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-flask-migrate-2.0.0-1.fc24.src.rpm

Description:
SQLAlchemy database migrations for Flask applications using Alembic.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1357749] Review Request: cargo - Rust' s package manager and build tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357749



--- Comment #3 from Josh Stone  ---
Any update?  I'd be happy to start addressing even preliminary review
comments...

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1365399] Review Request: python-aaargh - An astonishingly awesome application argument helper

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365399

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-aaargh-0.7.1-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a091e9df72

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1364723] Review Request: python-fuzzyfinder - Fuzzy Finder implemented in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364723

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-fuzzyfinder-1.0.0-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-7d496b5700

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1361687] Review Request: python-isort - A Python utility / library to sort Python imports

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1361687

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-isort-4.2.5-5.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-1ea5ba4ba9

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1365745] Review Request: fwknop-gui - GUI client for Fwknop

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365745

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
fwknop-gui-1.3-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e554dd98df

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1362626] Review Request: mediawriter - Fedora Media Writer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1362626

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
mediawriter-0-1.1git728a879.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3ddbdc6ebb

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1365144] Review Request: aries-blueprint-core - Apache Aries Blueprint Core

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365144

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1166658




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166658
[Bug 1166658] xbean: Enable xbean-blueprint 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366017] Review Request: aries-blueprint-cm - Apache Aries Blueprint CM

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366017

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1347977, 1365144, 1347973




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347973
[Bug 1347973] Review Request: aries-blueprint-api - Apache Aries Blueprint
API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347977
[Bug 1347977] Review Request: aries-blueprint-parser - Apache Aries
Blueprint Parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365144
[Bug 1365144] Review Request: aries-blueprint-core - Apache Aries Blueprint
Core
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1347977] Review Request: aries-blueprint-parser - Apache Aries Blueprint Parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347977

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1366017




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366017
[Bug 1366017] Review Request: aries-blueprint-cm - Apache Aries Blueprint
CM
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1365144] Review Request: aries-blueprint-core - Apache Aries Blueprint Core

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365144

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1366017




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366017
[Bug 1366017] Review Request: aries-blueprint-cm - Apache Aries Blueprint
CM
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1347973] Review Request: aries-blueprint-api - Apache Aries Blueprint API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347973

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1366017




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366017
[Bug 1366017] Review Request: aries-blueprint-cm - Apache Aries Blueprint
CM
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366017] Review Request: aries-blueprint-cm - Apache Aries Blueprint CM

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366017

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366017] Review Request: aries-blueprint-cm - Apache Aries Blueprint CM

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366017

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1166658




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166658
[Bug 1166658] xbean: Enable xbean-blueprint 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1366017] New: Review Request: aries-blueprint-cm - Apache Aries Blueprint CM

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366017

Bug ID: 1366017
   Summary: Review Request: aries-blueprint-cm - Apache Aries
Blueprint CM
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: punto...@libero.it
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/aries-blueprint-cm.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/aries-blueprint-cm-1.0.8-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: This bundle contains the ConfigAdmin namespace for blueprint.
Fedora Account System Username: gil

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1361659] Re-Review Request: vdsm - Virtual Desktop Server Manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1361659



--- Comment #11 from Yaniv Bronhaim  ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: VDSM
Short Description: VDSM service is required by a oVirt to manage Linux hosts.
VDSM manages and monitors the host's storage, memory and networks as well as
virtual machine creation, other host administration tasks, statistics
gathering, and log collection.
Owners: bronhaim
Branches: f23 f24 f25
InitialCC: dougsland

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1350257] Review Request: petsc - Portable Extensible Toolkit for Scientific Computation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350257



--- Comment #8 from Antonio Trande  ---
(In reply to Dave Love from comment #6)
> I had trouble running the review tool as I have to use a VM, and the build
> takes a lot of memory, but there are some problems and queries I have with
> the spec anyhow.
> 
>  * I think the --with-mpi-lib and --with-mpi-include configure args should
> be removed.
>They aren't necessary, and running pkg-config actually fails.  The %(env
> is
>evaluated at the wrong time and causes complaints, but there's no config
> file
>anyhow in at least el6, and it's unnecessary -- the mpi compiler wrapper
> will
>find the bits.  Are the other pkg-configs actually necessary?

Any better option instead of pkg-config calls for mpi libs?

> 
>  * The Requires: for petsc64-devel is misplaced and its description line is
> too long.

Fixed.

> 
>  * Why do the main packages require gfortran?  That can't be right.

It requires libgfortran ...
Or I'm in wrong?

> 
>  * The Fortran .mod files should be in -devel packages.

Fixed.

> 
>  * Do you have an opinion on whether a complex version is useful?
>Debian builds that, but only slepc-complex depends on it.

I have not idea

(In reply to Dave Love from comment #7)
> Oh, something else.  PAPI is a mess on el6.  You need to ensure you get v5
> for at least sandybridge+.  This is what I had to do for scorep:
> 
> # The messing with linkage paths here and below is due to the mess of   
> 
> # the papi package there.  %%_libdir/libpapi.so is papi v4 with a   
> 
> # soname of libpapi.so (bz #1300664).   
> 
> export LDFLAGS='-Wl,--as-needed -L%{_libdir}/papi-5.1.1/usr/lib'
> %global configure_opts --enable-shared --disable-static
> --disable-silent-rules
> %{?el6:--with-papi-header=%{_libdir}/papi-5.1.1%{_includedir}
> --with-papi-lib=%{_libdir}/papi-5.1.1/usr/lib}

I have added compiler/linker flags with a rpath.

SPEC:
http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/sagitter/petsc/petsc.git/plain/petsc.spec?id=8078b81e4d137eeacba114630538415b19396e08

SRPM:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/petsc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00440220-petsc/petsc-3.7.2-9.fc26.src.rpm

Copr builds:
http://copr-fe.cloud.fedoraproject.org/coprs/sagitter/petsc/build/440220/

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1365144] Review Request: aries-blueprint-core - Apache Aries Blueprint Core

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365144
Bug 1365144 depends on bug 1347973, which changed state.

Bug 1347973 Summary: Review Request: aries-blueprint-api - Apache Aries 
Blueprint API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347973

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1347977] Review Request: aries-blueprint-parser - Apache Aries Blueprint Parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347977
Bug 1347977 depends on bug 1347973, which changed state.

Bug 1347973 Summary: Review Request: aries-blueprint-api - Apache Aries 
Blueprint API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347973

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1347973] Review Request: aries-blueprint-api - Apache Aries Blueprint API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347973

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||aries-blueprint-api-1.0.1-1
   ||.fc25,
   ||aries-blueprint-api-1.0.1-1
   ||.fc26
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-08-10 13:29:55



--- Comment #13 from gil cattaneo  ---
rawhide Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15204617
f25 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15204667

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1344101] Review Request: rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin - Cross Origin Resource Sharing helper for Sinatra

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344101



--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1347976] Review Request: aries-blueprint-annotation-api - Apache Aries Blueprint Annotation API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347976



--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo  ---
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/aries-blueprint-annotation-api.spec
SRPM URL:
https://gil.fedorapeople.org/aries-blueprint-annotation-api-1.0.1-1.fc24.noarch.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1347975] Review Request: aries-quiesce-api - Apache Aries Quiesce API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347975



--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo  ---
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/aries-quiesce-api.spec
SRPM URL:
https://gil.fedorapeople.org/aries-quiesce-api-1.0.0-1.fc24.noarch.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1348146] Review Request: aries-proxy-impl - Apache Aries Proxy Service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348146



--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo  ---
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/aries-proxy-impl.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/aries-proxy-impl-1.0.5-1.fc24.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1217957] Review Request: python-relogger - A syslog sender, relay and receiver.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1217957

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #10 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
I see number80 has already sponsored you in packager, hence removing
FE-NEEDSPONSOR from this bug.


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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1347977] Review Request: aries-blueprint-parser - Apache Aries Blueprint Parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347977



--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo  ---
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/aries-blueprint-parser.spec
SRPM URL:
https://gil.fedorapeople.org/aries-blueprint-parser-1.4.0-1.fc24.noarch.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1347980] Review Request: aries-proxy-api - Apache Aries Proxy API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347980



--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo  ---
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/aries-proxy-api.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/aries-proxy-api-1.0.1-1.fc24.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1344101] Review Request: rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin - Cross Origin Resource Sharing helper for Sinatra

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344101



--- Comment #9 from Jun Aruga  ---
> koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14425449

Sorry I missed your first Koji build line. I got it. 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1201338] Review Request: python-uniseg - A pure Python module to determine Unicode text segmentation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201338

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||panem...@gmail.com
 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW)
 Resolution|--- |DEFERRED
Last Closed||2016-08-10 12:42:00



--- Comment #14 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Well then based on comment#11 lets close this.

Murilo, when you want to continue here please just reopen and provide updated
SPEC and SRPM links.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1347973] Review Request: aries-blueprint-api - Apache Aries Blueprint API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347973



--- Comment #12 from gil cattaneo  ---
Sure. Thanks for the review!

create new SCM requests:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7137
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7138

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1315495] Review Request: ibus-table-coptic - Unicode Ibus keyboard input for Sahidic Coptic

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1315495



--- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Suggestions:
1) Drop following

Requires:   google-noto-sans-coptic-fonts
Obsoletes:  ibus-coptic < 0.1-3

we don't add requirement on fonts and I see there was no such ibus-coptic
package existed on Fedora

2) Following is now optional and can be removed
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

3) Please use macros as mentioned here ->
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros

/usr/share => %{_datadir}  

4) I see other similar packages are not using %post section which is added here
for this package. Also explained in comment#4 here

Please update the package and provide new SPEC and SRPM link by bumping release
number and adding related 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1344101] Review Request: rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin - Cross Origin Resource Sharing helper for Sinatra

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344101

Jun Aruga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #8 from Jun Aruga  ---
František Dvořák
Thanks, I checked the Koji and your updated spec file.
I APPROVED 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1347973] Review Request: aries-blueprint-api - Apache Aries Blueprint API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347973

Jonny Heggheim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #11 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #10)
> aries-blueprint should be retired. please, continue the review

Review approved. Please initiate retirement of aries-blueprint.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1344101] Review Request: rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin - Cross Origin Resource Sharing helper for Sinatra

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344101



--- Comment #7 from František Dvořák  ---
(In reply to Jun Aruga from comment #6)
> Hi, František Dvořák
> 
> I reviewed it. I want to ask you below points.
> 
> # Summary
> 
> ## 1.
> 
> > %if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 7
> > Requires:   ruby(rubygems)
> > Provides:   rubygem(%{gem_name}) = %{version}
> > %endif
> 
> Do you want to use this pacakge for rhel too now?
> Actually I am not confident that this 2 lines are correct for condition rhel
> <= 7. I can agree with your style if you are confident for the 2 lines.
> 

It is true these lines could be removed.

These lines were always needed for EPEL7 (and for F20, which is not needed to
check anymore), but it it true I'm not going to package it for EPEL7 right now.
I'm interested in EPEL7, but I must explore the sinatra package first, which is
not in EPEL7.

> ## 2.
> 
> > %files
> > ... 
> > %exclude %{gem_instdir}/%{gem_name}.gemspec
> > %exclude %{gem_instdir}/Rakefile
> > %exclude %{gem_instdir}/VERSION
> 
> In my style, I prefer those is included to %files doc section (doc-rpm).
> 
> My style is
> - *. gem_cache was excluded.
> - minimam files to run are included to %files.
> - Other text files are included to %files doc.
> because I like kind of same style with output of gem2rpm.
> 
> However I can agree with you style too, as it is gray area.
> 
> I want to respect your idea as much as possible if we have different style
> and it is not violation for the Guideline.
> 

Thanks. I don't have strong preferences here and to be close to gem2rpm means
to be more consistent with other packages. Updated.

> 
> ## 3.
> 
> > [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
> >  architectures.
> 
> Could you show me URL of Koji scratch build?
> 

The new koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15203098


Updated version:

Spec URL:
http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin-0.3.2-2/rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin.spec
SRPM URL:
http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin-0.3.2-2/rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin-0.3.2-2.fc26.src.rpm

%changelog
* Wed Aug 10 2016 František Dvořák  - 0.3.2-2
- Update files 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1343661] Rebase clufter component

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343661

Jan Pokorný  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|clufter-0.59.5-1.el7|clufter-0.59.5-2.el7



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1365782] python-django-model-utils - Django model mixins and utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365782



--- Comment #7 from Germano Massullo  ---
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #5)
> > Source0:
> > https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/%(n=%{pypi_name}; echo 
> > ${n:0:1})/%{pypi_name}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz
> don't mix tabs and spaces

Fixed.

> > %description
> > Django model mixins and utilities
> %description
> %{summary}.

Fixed.

> > %{python2_sitelib}/*
> I'm kinda dislike such globbing as if module will start installing some
> weird files or other modules you will not notice.

Probably I will take care of that in the future

spec file:
https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/python-django-model-utils/v2/python-django-model-utils.spec

srpm file:
https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/python-django-model-utils/v2/python-django-model-utils-2.5.2-1.fc24.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1361687] Review Request: python-isort - A Python utility / library to sort Python imports

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1361687



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-isort-4.2.5-5.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-1ea5ba4ba9

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1361687] Review Request: python-isort - A Python utility / library to sort Python imports

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1361687



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-isort-4.2.5-5.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-1cd9b32e27

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1344101] Review Request: rubygem-sinatra-cross_origin - Cross Origin Resource Sharing helper for Sinatra

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344101



--- Comment #6 from Jun Aruga  ---
Hi, František Dvořák

I reviewed it. I want to ask you below points.

# Summary

## 1.

> %if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 7
> Requires:   ruby(rubygems)
> Provides:   rubygem(%{gem_name}) = %{version}
> %endif

Do you want to use this pacakge for rhel too now?
Actually I am not confident that this 2 lines are correct for condition rhel <=
7. I can agree with your style if you are confident for the 2 lines.

## 2.

> %files
> ... 
> %exclude %{gem_instdir}/%{gem_name}.gemspec
> %exclude %{gem_instdir}/Rakefile
> %exclude %{gem_instdir}/VERSION

In my style, I prefer those is included to %files doc section (doc-rpm).

My style is
- *. gem_cache was excluded.
- minimam files to run are included to %files.
- Other text files are included to %files doc.
because I like kind of same style with output of gem2rpm.

However I can agree with you style too, as it is gray area.

I want to respect your idea as much as possible if we have different style and
it is not violation for the Guideline.


## 3.

> [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
>  architectures.

Could you show me URL of Koji scratch build?



# Detail fedora-reivew

I will show you the result of fedora-review too, just in case.
(I have waited until this package would be composed to rawhide to run
fedora-review .)

$ fedora-review -b 1344101

= 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 6 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jaruga/git
 /fedora-packages/review/1344101-rubygem-sinatra-
 cross_origin/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
 /usr/share/gems/doc
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
 Note: Package contains font files
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to 

[Bug 1365782] python-django-model-utils - Django model mixins and utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365782



--- Comment #6 from Kevin Kofler  ---
> * Move BuildRequires under subpackages

Huh? Why? BuildRequires are a global property. They are installed once for the
whole build and affect all subpackages. You can technically put them under a
subpackage, but they will still affect the whole build process. It is not even
always clear for which subpackage any given BuildRequires is. So IMHO it is
misleading to put them there. I always put all my BuildRequires in the main
section. I have only rarely seen packagers doing it differently (for
BuildRequires that are clearly used only to build a specific subpackage).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1154218] Review Request: graphite-api - Graphite-web, without the interface. Just the rendering HTTP API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154218

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|ERRATA  |---
   Keywords||Reopened



--- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System  ---
graphite-api-1.1.3-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-aafa9d322d

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1365745] Review Request: fwknop-gui - GUI client for Fwknop

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365745



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
fwknop-gui-1.3-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a9d855e173

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1365745] Review Request: fwknop-gui - GUI client for Fwknop

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365745



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
fwknop-gui-1.3-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-85b83e5cb8

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1365782] python-django-model-utils - Django model mixins and utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365782



--- Comment #5 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
> Source0:  
> https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/%(n=%{pypi_name}; echo 
> ${n:0:1})/%{pypi_name}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.tar.gz
don't mix tabs and spaces

> %description
> Django model mixins and utilities
%description
%{summary}.

> %{python2_sitelib}/*
I'm kinda dislike such globbing as if module will start installing some weird
files or other modules you will not notice.

* Move BuildRequires under subpackages

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1361687] Review Request: python-isort - A Python utility / library to sort Python imports

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1361687

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1361687] Review Request: python-isort - A Python utility / library to sort Python imports

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1361687



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-isort-4.2.5-4.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-904927249c

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1361687] Review Request: python-isort - A Python utility / library to sort Python imports

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1361687



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-isort-4.2.5-4.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-7185ecb2df

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1348162] Review Request: rubygem-net-dns - Pure Ruby DNS library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348162



--- Comment #6 from Germano Massullo  ---
modified
cp %{SOURCE1} .
to
cp -p %{SOURCE1} .
to preserve timestamps. Thanks to Igor Gnatenko for the hint.

https://fedorapeople.org/~germano/package_reviews/rubygem-net-dns/rubygem-net-dns-0.8.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
https://fedorapeople.org/~germano/package_reviews/rubygem-net-dns/rubygem-net-dns.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1364723] Review Request: python-fuzzyfinder - Fuzzy Finder implemented in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364723



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-fuzzyfinder-1.0.0-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-7d496b5700

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1364723] Review Request: python-fuzzyfinder - Fuzzy Finder implemented in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364723

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org