date:20160819

[Bug 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243



--- Comment #15 from Michal Karm Babacek  ---
@Gil, THX for reading the spec. I'll amend the regions you highlighted.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1366878] Review Request: python-attrs - Python attributes without boilerplate

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366878



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-attrs-16.0.0-6.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-f2d9bbaef6

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243



--- Comment #14 from gil cattaneo  ---
this had not yet seen

%post java-tomcat8
if [ "$1" == "1" ]; then
%{__ln_s} %{libdir}/mod_cluster-container-catalina.jar
%{_javadir}/tomcat/mod_cluster-container-catalina.jar
%{__ln_s} %{libdir}/mod_cluster-container-catalina-standalone.jar
%{_javadir}/tomcat/mod_cluster-container-catalina-standalone.jar
%{__ln_s} %{libdir}/mod_cluster-container-spi.jar
%{_javadir}/tomcat/mod_cluster-container-spi.jar
%{__ln_s} %{libdir}/mod_cluster-core.jar
%{_javadir}/tomcat/mod_cluster-core.jar
%{__ln_s} %{_javadir}/jboss-logging/jboss-logging.jar
%{_javadir}/tomcat/jboss-logging.jar
%{__ln_s} %{libdir}/mod_cluster-container-tomcat8.jar
%{_javadir}/tomcat/mod_cluster-container-tomcat8.jar
fi


#%postun  java-tomcat7
#if [ "$1" == "0" ]; then
#rm -f %{_javadir}/tomcat/mod_cluster-container-catalina.jar
#rm -f %{_javadir}/tomcat/mod_cluster-container-catalina-standalone.jar
#rm -f %{_javadir}/tomcat/mod_cluster-container-spi.jar
#rm -f %{_javadir}/tomcat/mod_cluster-core.jar
#rm -f %{_javadir}/tomcat/jboss-logging.jar
#rm -f %{_javadir}/tomcat/mod_cluster-container-tomcat7.jar
#fi
%postun java-tomcat8
if [ "$1" == "0" ]; then
rm -f %{_javadir}/tomcat/mod_cluster-container-catalina.jar
rm -f %{_javadir}/tomcat/mod_cluster-container-catalina-standalone.jar
rm -f %{_javadir}/tomcat/mod_cluster-container-spi.jar
rm -f %{_javadir}/tomcat/mod_cluster-core.jar
rm -f %{_javadir}/tomcat/jboss-logging.jar
rm -f %{_javadir}/tomcat/mod_cluster-container-tomcat8.jar
fi
%endif

i do not know what good and i do not know
but this work is really useless ...
you could be simplified using the macro %mvn_file groupId:artifactId [SUBDIR]
e.g. %mvn_file :mod_cluster-container-catalina
%{name}/mod_cluster-container-catalina tomcat/mod_cluster-container-catalina

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243



--- Comment #13 from gil cattaneo  ---
e.g. these are really useless:
BuildRequires: jpackage-utils
BuildRequires: java-devel
are installed by default using maven-local

The Group: tag is unnecessary.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections

Requires: jboss-logging
Requires: tomcat >= 1:8
because "Requires" are handled by our java tools


%exclude %{libdir}/%{name}-container-tomcat8*
%exclude %{libdir}/%{name}-container-catalina*

%exclude %{_mavenpomdir}/JPP.%{name}-%{name}-container-tomcat8*
%exclude %{_mavendepmapfragdir}/JPP.%{name}-%{name}-container-tomcat8*
%exclude
%{_datadir}/maven-effective-poms/JPP.%{name}-%{name}-container-tomcat8*

must be use at least %mvn_package groupId:artifactId [SUB PAKAGE]
or adding "-s" option:
%mvn_build -s -f -- -PTC8
or
%mvn_build -sf -- -PTC8

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243



--- Comment #12 from gil cattaneo  ---
This is the guideline for java packages
https://fedorahosted.org/released/javapackages/doc/
the spec file, sorry, is horrible, the last time I saw one so goes back at
least twenty years ago

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1247243] Review Request: mod_cluster - httpd modules and Tomcat/ WildFly java libraries

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247243

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||punto...@libero.it



--- Comment #11 from gil cattaneo  ---
This package is already present
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/mod_cluster/

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1368611] New: Review Request: typetype-molot-fonts - Display sans-serif fonts

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1368611

Bug ID: 1368611
   Summary: Review Request: typetype-molot-fonts - Display
sans-serif fonts
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: l...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/typetype-molot-fonts.spec
SRPM URL:
https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/typetype-molot-fonts-1.000-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: A display sans-serif font created by Roman Ershov and Jovanny
Lemonad
Fedora Account System Username: luya

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1366355] Review Request: acme-tiny - Tiny auditable ACME script for Let's Encrypt

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366355



--- Comment #9 from Stuart D Gathman  ---
Spec URL: http://gathman.org/linux/SPECS/acme-tiny.spec
SRPM URL: http://gathman.org/linux/el6/src/acme-tiny-0.1-6.el6.src.rpm

Tested cert-check with python3 AND committed it this time.  Made /var/lib/acme
readable by all except private.  Removed env from acme-tiny.  Updated patch to
leave default behavior unchanged.  Still thinking about leaving acme-tiny
really unchanged and include cert-chain-resolver (or make that another
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 1368606] Review Request: astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts - Script retro style fonts

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1368606



--- Comment #1 from Luya Tshimbalanga  ---
Resulting scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15312376

Valid rpmlint:
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SRPMS/astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts-1.000-1.fc24.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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 1368606] Review Request: astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts - Script retro style fonts

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1368606

Luya Tshimbalanga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Alias||grand-hotel-fonts



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1368606] New: Review Request: astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts - Script retro style fonts

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1368606

Bug ID: 1368606
   Summary: Review Request: astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts - Script
retro style fonts
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: l...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts.spec
SRPM URL:
https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/astigmatic-grand-hotel-fonts-1.000-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Grand Hotel finds its inspiration from the title screen of the
1937 film “Cafe 
Metropole” starring Tyrone Power. This condensed upright connecting script has 
a classic vibe to it.
It has a wonderful weight to it that feels subtly tied to Holiday and Bakery 
themed designs, even though it can work outside that genre.
Fedora Account System Username: luya

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1366878] Review Request: python-attrs - Python attributes without boilerplate

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366878



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-attrs-16.0.0-5.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-2016-94a198c866

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1366881] Review Request: ispc - C-based SPMD programming language compiler

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366881

Luya Tshimbalanga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #8 from Luya Tshimbalanga  ---
Just following up as the updated spec and srpm are posted with recommended
changes. See comment #7.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1366784] Review Request: mpdecimal - Library for general decimal arithmetic

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366784



--- Comment #2 from Jaroslav Škarvada  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- List all deps in BuildRequires
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_2
- It's library and ldconfig is not called in %post and %postun
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries


= 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.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: 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)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated".
 20 files have unknown license.

According to the comments it seems docs contains MIT, BSD, GPL, GPLv2 licensed
content. I think the doc subpackage needs to have license tag "BSD and GPL", or
simply GPL (by utilizing license compatibility).

[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.

License file is not installed if only doc subpackage is installed.

[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

I think the doc subpackage should require the base package, this will also
resolve the problem with the license file installation.

[?]: Package functions as described.

I am just

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

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
fwknop-gui-1.3-2.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 1366741] Review Request: xcb-util-xrm - XCB utility functions for the X resource manager

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366741

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ssmet...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
Stepan, your turn to review this package ;)

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

[Bug 1352215] Review Request: llvm37 -- Versioned LLVM 3.7

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352215



--- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts  ---
Sorry, what request do you need to be validated?  Have you requested your
package in the package database?  You can use this ticket as the reference.  I
can process the request, or if John does it first then he'll see this ticket.

However, it is important to note that this package is not correctly named, and
you only get the review exemption if you actually follow the naming guidelines.

The name should be "llvm3.7".  Unless it really is version thirty-seven.  See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming  The fact that llvm33 and
certainly other packages are doing it wrong isn't a good reason for failing to
do it correctly now.

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

[Bug 1350260] Review Request: cmap-resources - CMap Resources for Adobe' s public character collections

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350260



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
cmap-resources-2015.12.05-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL
7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-085ef35ab8

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1350260] Review Request: cmap-resources - CMap Resources for Adobe' s public character collections

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350260



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
cmap-resources-2015.12.05-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-7e32728be1

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1350260] Review Request: cmap-resources - CMap Resources for Adobe' s public character collections

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350260



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
cmap-resources-2015.12.05-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c6020e3145

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1350260] Review Request: cmap-resources - CMap Resources for Adobe' s public character collections

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350260

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 1350260] Review Request: cmap-resources - CMap Resources for Adobe' s public character collections

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350260



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
cmap-resources-2015.12.05-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-dfec1e7435

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

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

Adam Miller  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #7 from Adam Miller  ---

Package Review
==

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

= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated".
 143 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/admiller/reviews/1357749-cargo/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/zsh/site-functions,
 /usr/share/zsh
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in cargo-
 debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
 Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %check is

[Bug 1350260] Review Request: cmap-resources - CMap Resources for Adobe' s public character collections

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350260



--- Comment #4 from Ben Rosser  ---
Awesome, thanks for the review!

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

[Bug 1350260] Review Request: cmap-resources - CMap Resources for Adobe' s public character collections

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350260



--- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/cmap-resources

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

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

Adam Miller  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||admil...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|admil...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1308561] Review Request: sway - i3-compatible window manager for Wayland

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308561

Adam Miller  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #17 from Adam Miller  ---
It looks like everything I wanted cleaned up got cleaned up and since the
external packages are left out pending the Council's decision, I'm inclined to
approve. Apologies for the lag time on this.

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 1082825] Review Request: mozilla-lightbeam - An add-on for visualizing HTTP requests between websites in real time

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082825

Ben Rosser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #9 from Ben Rosser  ---
Awesome, thanks.

Everything looks good-- package is APPROVED.

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (3 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* MIT/X11
 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MPL (v2.0)". 5
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bjr/Programming/fedora/reviews/1082825-mozilla-
 lightbeam/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners:
 /usr/share/mozilla/extensions/{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384},
 /usr/share/mozilla/extensions/{92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed

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

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-08-19 15:53:55



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

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

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
fwknop-gui-1.3-2.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 879740] Review Request: python-evdev - bindings for the linux input handling subsystem

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=879740

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #13 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
%_summary macro is not necessary. Just write out the first Summary normally,
and then user "Summary: %summary" in the subsequent ones.

%gittag0 is also not necessary. Just use "v%{version}".

Group tag is not necessary
[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections].

It's nice not to repeat the %description. I'd suggest something like this:

%global _description \
This package provides bindings to the generic input event interface in Linux.  
\
The evdev interface serves the purpose of passing events generated in the
kernel\
directly to userspace through character devices that are typically located in  
\
...

%description %_description
%description -n python3-evdev %_description
etc.

"-n %{name}-%{version}" is exactly the default for %autosetup, so it's not
necessary.

It's better to specify the files under %{python[23]_sitearch}, rather than
using a glob. Something like this:
%files -n python3-evdev
...
%{python3_sitearch}/evdev/
%{python3_sitearch}/evdev-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info/
and similarly for python2. This would catch any mistakes in the installation of
a wrong version or name.

BuildRequires should generally be one-per-line. This makes diffs much more
readable.


> As far as the license headers are concerned, I find them somewhat redundant 
> and I'm not too enthusiastic about adding them to all source files.

Ack. There's no strict requirement for this, and certainly lots of packages
don't follow this. The license must be unambiguous, that's all.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1082825] Review Request: mozilla-lightbeam - An add-on for visualizing HTTP requests between websites in real time

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1082825



--- Comment #8 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
(In reply to Ben Rosser from comment #6)
> Issues
> ==
> 
> * Version 1.3.1 seems to be available:
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/lightbeam/; can you update
> the package, and I'll re-review?

Done.

> *
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kalev/
> MozillaExtensionsDraft#Sample_Spec_File seems to sugggest that XPIs should
> be unpacked? I'm assuming that's no longer the case because of extension
> signing?

That's correct.

> * This is very minor, but rpmlint is unhappy that your bundled font provides
> are not versioned. The versioning information can be acquired by unzipping
> the XPI and running ttname -a over the font files. It'd probably be nice to
> include that information, though I wouldn't consider it a blocker for review.

Done.

Spec URL:
http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mozilla-lightbeam/mozilla-lightbeam.spec
SRPM URL:
http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mozilla-lightbeam/mozilla-lightbeam-1.3.1-1.fc24.src.rpm

* Fri Aug 19 2016 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  - 1.3.1-1
- update to 1.3.1
- added versions to bundled font Provides

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1366277] python-gfm - Github-Flavored Markdown for Python-Markdown

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366277

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

[Bug 1366277] python-gfm - Github-Flavored Markdown for Python-Markdown

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366277



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-gfm-0.1.3-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d68bd1607d

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1366277] python-gfm - Github-Flavored Markdown for Python-Markdown

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366277



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-gfm-0.1.3-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-84dce5e362

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1366277] python-gfm - Github-Flavored Markdown for Python-Markdown

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366277



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-gfm-0.1.3-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6afe4007a6

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1366277] python-gfm - Github-Flavored Markdown for Python-Markdown

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366277



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-gfm-0.1.3-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-336acf2def

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1367825] Review Request: snapd - The snapd and snap tools enable systems to work with .snap files

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1367825

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also||https://fedorahosted.org/fe
   ||sco/ticket/1614



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1350260] Review Request: cmap-resources - CMap Resources for Adobe' s public character collections

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350260

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
Sorry for the delay.

Two things:

Change Source0: to:
https://github.com/adobe-type-tools/cmap-resources/archive/%{commit}.zip#/cmap-resources-%{commit}.zip

Consider moving the license, docs and /usr/share/cmap ownership to
cmap-resources main package and have all subpackages require it instead of
duplicating the license and all txt files in the subpackages.

Other than that, it looks fine. You can correct the above upon import.

Package APPROVED.

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: unzip
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2


= 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/cmap(cmap-cns1-6,
 cmap-korean1-2, cmap-gb1-5, cmap-identity0, cmap-japan1-6)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 122880 bytes in 12 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package 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.
5d7d69740e679206efba680d40753a7451eb5ba7b3b0d681c40be968d06ffa69 
cmap-resources-0561ebca035813ed04c3485bca636a0aa7abdc1d.zip

[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.

[Bug 1366837] Review Request: webjars-locator - WebJar Locator

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366837

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1363923




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1363923
[Bug 1363923] Review Request: springframework4 - Spring Java Application
Framework
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1364535] Review Request: ehcache2 - Java in-process cache

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364535

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1363923




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1363923
[Bug 1363923] Review Request: springframework4 - Spring Java Application
Framework
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1366845] Review Request: reactor - Reactive fast data framework for the JVM

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366845

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1363923




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1363923
[Bug 1363923] Review Request: springframework4 - Spring Java Application
Framework
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1363923] Review Request: springframework4 - Spring Java Application Framework

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1363923

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1364535, 1366845, 1366837




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364535
[Bug 1364535] Review Request: ehcache2 - Java in-process cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366837
[Bug 1366837] Review Request: webjars-locator - WebJar Locator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366845
[Bug 1366845] Review Request: reactor - Reactive fast data framework for
the JVM
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1366878] Review Request: python-attrs - Python attributes without boilerplate

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366878

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-attrs-16.0.0-5.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-2016-67830f0533

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1367598] Review Request: gap-pkg-guava - Computing with error-correcting codes

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1367598



--- Comment #4 from Jerry James  ---
I added those parentheses.  I also noticed that guava has a software popcount
implementation, so I added another patch to use a CPU popcount instruction
instead if one is available.  New URLs:

Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-guava/gap-pkg-guava.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/gap-pkg-guava/gap-pkg-guava-3.13.1-2.fc26.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 804125] Review Request: rdkit - A toolkit for cheminformatics and machine learning

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #71 from Rex Dieter  ---
A strong and not-so-humble suggestion (for reviewer and non-reviewer commenters
mostly): please focus on strict review blockers (those documented in package
review guidelines.  One specific item: rpmlint warnings are not blockers

Polish and nice-to-have stuff can certainly be added later (which is more
easily done with better collaboration after package is imported).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1366355] Review Request: acme-tiny - Tiny auditable ACME script for Let's Encrypt

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366355



--- Comment #8 from Stuart D Gathman  ---
Arrgh.  I *did* test cert-check.py with python3, but neglected to commit the
changes...

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

[Bug 1366355] Review Request: acme-tiny - Tiny auditable ACME script for Let's Encrypt

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366355



--- Comment #7 from Stuart D Gathman  ---
Thanks - I'll fix the cert-check script, and I can test it on python3.  Also,
after some discussion on the acme-tiny github page, I will be removing or
changing the patch to append intermediate certs.  The package promises to "use
the upstream acme-tiny".  The patch changes the default semantics, and some
applications depend on acme-tiny outputting *only* the one cert.  

Options are:

1) Include or depend on https://github.com/muchlearning/cert-chain-resolver-py
   This not only downloads intermediate certs, but does a lot of sanity
checking.

2) Modify the patch to add an option flag to append intermediate certs, thus
leaving the default behavior unchanged.  The intermediate certs are included in
the acme response in any case, it is just a matter of whether to extract and
append them.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1367769] Review Request: loopabull - Event loop driven Ansible playbook execution engine

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1367769



--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/loopabull

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 804125] Review Request: rdkit - A toolkit for cheminformatics and machine learning

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #70 from Gianluca Sforna  ---
I used the suggestion from 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unused-direct-shlib-dependency

and added the linker flag in:
> https://giallu.fedorapeople.org/rdkit.spec
> https://giallu.fedorapeople.org/rdkit-2016.03.2-6.fc23.src.rpm

Antonio, please test it and let me know if it works

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1367825] Review Request: snapd - The snapd and snap tools enable systems to work with .snap files

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1367825

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1367932
 Depends On|1367932 |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1367932
[Bug 1367932] systemd presets request - snapd.socket snapd.refresh.timer
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 804125] Review Request: rdkit - A toolkit for cheminformatics and machine learning

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #69 from Paul Emsley  ---
(In reply to Gianluca Sforna from comment #68)
> Another iteration at:
> https://giallu.fedorapeople.org/rdkit.spec
> https://giallu.fedorapeople.org/rdkit-2016.03.2-5.fc23.src.rpm
> 
> The "unused-direct-shlib-dependency" rpmlint issues seems to be rawhide
> specific, as my F24 mock build does not exhibit the same behavior. 

That's curious. Perhaps add to your CMakeLists.txt:

set (CMAKE_SHARED_LINKER_FLAGS "-Wl,--as-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 804125] Review Request: rdkit - A toolkit for cheminformatics and machine learning

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #68 from Gianluca Sforna  ---
Another iteration at:
https://giallu.fedorapeople.org/rdkit.spec
https://giallu.fedorapeople.org/rdkit-2016.03.2-5.fc23.src.rpm

I fixed the rpath for the cartridge and the removed the fmcs script as
suggested in comment #66, the wrong-script-interpreter is also fixed for
fcms.py

The "unused-direct-shlib-dependency" rpmlint issues seems to be rawhide
specific, as my F24 mock build does not exhibit the same behavior. I will need
to investigate where this come from, please let me know if you consider this
blocking for the review.

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

[Bug 1352215] Review Request: llvm37 -- Versioned LLVM 3.7

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1352215



--- Comment #5 from Milan Bouchet-Valat  ---
I still need somebody to support my request in order to get the git repos set
up. :-)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1366878] Review Request: python-attrs - Python attributes without boilerplate

2016-08-19 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366878



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-attrs-16.0.0-6.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-f2d9bbaef6

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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

55 matches

Mail list logo