[Bug 1372785] Review Request: EPEL7 ONLY python-pyOpenSSL- a python3x build of the pyOpenSSL included in the base distro

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372785



--- Comment #7 from Orion Poplawski  ---
It's definitely a bit of a mixed bag (especially since some packages are
python3 only like this one and some are mixed) - but for the most part we've
been treating the python3 stack in EPEL7 as completely separate and taking the
opportunity to update versions.  It probably makes sense to take a look at what
would be making use of it to help guide choosing the appropriate version to
package, but I would learn towards packaging newer rather than older.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1369708] Review Request: tpm2-tss - TPM2.0 Software Stack

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369708



--- Comment #22 from Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich  ---
There is no way to get sources via URL in Source0 tag. Moreover, sources in
src.rpm differs from upstream.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1364777] Review Request: fifechan - C++ GUI library designed for games

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364777

Mukundan Ragavan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #9 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
I am satisfied with the changes. Package APPROVED.

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

[Bug 1372785] Review Request: EPEL7 ONLY python-pyOpenSSL- a python3x build of the pyOpenSSL included in the base distro

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372785



--- Comment #6 from Jim Perrin  ---
Correct. I was intentionally matching what available for python 2.x in the base
distro (and initially starting from that srpm). I wanted to keep the
features/function consistent between the two. If we want to say that "python3
is newer and so the tooling should be newer" I could certainly be convinced.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1372785] Review Request: EPEL7 ONLY python-pyOpenSSL- a python3x build of the pyOpenSSL included in the base distro

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372785



--- Comment #5 from Orion Poplawski  ---
actually the latest is 16.1.0.

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

[Bug 1372785] Review Request: EPEL7 ONLY python-pyOpenSSL- a python3x build of the pyOpenSSL included in the base distro

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372785

Orion Poplawski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
  Component|Package Review  |Package Review
Version|epel7   |rawhide
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|or...@cora.nwra.com
Product|Fedora EPEL |Fedora
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #4 from Orion Poplawski  ---
I'm resetting the product to Fedora, because you can't sync to a Fedora EPEL
bug in pkgdb when you go to add the component.

Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Permissions on files are set properly.
  Note: See rpmlint output
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
- Non UTF-8 file
- Latest is 0.14
- Are there tests that can be run?
- You shouldn't need BR python-devel.
- You really don't need to conditionally define python3_pkgversion - it's
defined everywhere, and this in an EPEL only package anyway.
- There are no comments with the patches indicating what they do or linking to
any upstream bug reports
- doc sub-package needs %license 
- Update the URL

= MUST items =

C/C++:
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Public domain". 78
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /export/home/orion/redhat/python3-pyOpenSSL-0.13.1/review-
 python3-pyOpenSSL/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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]: 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, 

[Bug 1374075] Review Request: mediawiki127-intersection - Create a list of pages that are listed in a set of categories

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374075

Kevin Fenzi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed||2016-09-08 18:06:43



--- Comment #1 from Kevin Fenzi  ---
I'm dropping this review as we decided to just go with the Fedora 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 1374073] Review Request: mediawiki127-RSS - Displays one or more RSS feeds on a wiki page

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374073

Kevin Fenzi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed||2016-09-08 18:06:52



--- Comment #1 from Kevin Fenzi  ---
I'm dropping this review as we decided to just go with the Fedora 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 1374068] Review Request: mediawiki127-openid - Allow users to login with OpenID

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374068

Kevin Fenzi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed||2016-09-08 18:07:01



--- Comment #1 from Kevin Fenzi  ---
I'm dropping this review as we decided to just go with the Fedora 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 1374055] Review Request: mediawiki127 - A wiki engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374055

Kevin Fenzi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed||2016-09-08 18:06:16



--- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi  ---
ok. I am just going to close this and we will just go with the regular Fedora
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 1374510] Review Request: lv2-ir-plugins - LV2 Plugin: low-latency, realtime, high performance signal convolver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374510



--- Comment #1 from Guido Aulisi  ---
There was an old review request for this package, see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788717 it was closed because of f16
eol.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1374510] Review Request: lv2-ir-plugins - LV2 Plugin: low-latency, realtime, high performance signal convolver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374510

Guido Aulisi  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 1374510] New: Review Request: lv2-ir-plugins - LV2 Plugin: low-latency, realtime, high performance signal convolver

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374510

Bug ID: 1374510
   Summary: Review Request: lv2-ir-plugins - LV2 Plugin:
low-latency, realtime, high performance signal
convolver
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: guido.aul...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://www.sentolavita.com/pkgs/lv2-ir-plugins.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.sentolavita.com/pkgs/lv2-ir-plugins-1.3.2-1.fc24.src.rpm

Description: IR is a low-latency, realtime, high performance signal
convolver especially for creating reverb effects. Supports impulse
responses with 1, 2 or 4 channels, in any soundfile format supported
by libsndfile.

Fedora Account System Username: tartina

Link to successful koji build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15543150

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 1371635] Review Request: adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts - A set of OpenType fonts designed to complement Source Sans Pro

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371635



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts-1.017-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25
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 1371635] Review Request: adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts - A set of OpenType fonts designed to complement Source Sans Pro

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371635

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-09-08 17:15:48



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1334611] Review Request: python-cvss - CVSS2/ 3 library with interactive calculator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334611

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-09-08 17:15:41



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1334611] Review Request: python-cvss - CVSS2/ 3 library with interactive calculator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334611



--- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-cvss-1.4-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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 1229903] Review Request: NetworkManager-sstp - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSTP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229903



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
NetworkManager-sstp-1.2.0-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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 1229903] Review Request: NetworkManager-sstp - NetworkManager VPN plugin for SSTP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1229903

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-09-08 17:15:06



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1372785] Review Request: EPEL7 ONLY python-pyOpenSSL- a python3x build of the pyOpenSSL included in the base distro

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372785



--- Comment #3 from Jim Perrin  ---
Changes made, updated spec and packages are now in
https://people.centos.org/jperrin/python3-pyOpenSSL/

if you'd care to take another look.

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



--- Comment #15 from Jan Pokorný  ---
More pleasant to read, bugzilla friendly version
(s/rhbz#\([0-9]*\)/[bug \1]/g):

Bug fixes
=

! ccs2pcs* conversion now properly propagates or adds monitor action
  [resolves: [bug 1272570]]

. ccs2pcs* conversion now (suitably) aborts when it reaches exclusive
  resource group
  [related: [bug 1206640] ([bug 1272191])]

. ccs2pcs* conversion now does not take undeployed (contained in
   and not referenced elsewhere) into account and is
  more careful about carrying about parent service group auxiliary
  reference for further processing
  [related/resolves: [bug 1272592]]

! pcs2pcscmd{,-needle} now propagates cluster name correctly,
  previously it was mistakenly dropped resulting in confusing
  first cluster node for that
  (e.g., pcs cluster setup --start --name node1 node2 node3)

. ccs2pcs* conversion now propagates two_node (and internally
  also expected_votes) properties of cman as defined in cluster.conf
  correctly

. help screens/manual pages for *2pcs* commands now documents
  "cib" arguments correctly

. pcs2pcscmd* conversion now correctly includes cmd-wrap filter
  resulting in the output line-wrapped per expectation

. "assisted recovery" now works on systems without /dev/tty as well
  as on systems for which open-modify[open+close] (final close yet
  to come) of particular file won't reliably discover mtime change;
  now strict open-close-modify is used instead (and mtime check in
  a was-file-changed test is preceded with a file size comparison for
  good measure), making intermittent failures in test runs disappear

. clufter is now capable of handling command options as unicode
  (relates to the usage as a library, original discovery thanks
  to pcs) and "the magic interpolation" of the command inputs now
  works at places where it was supposed to but unfortunately did not

! ccs2pcs* commands no longer generate accidentally broken values
  of attributes marked as having an ID type in the schema
  [resolves: [bug 1300050]]

. ccs2pcs* commands now translate notion of recovery/relocate recover
  policy of the resource group as supported by RGManager into the
  parallel expression in Pacemaker universe;  the same applies to
  __independent_subtree=2 at the resource level and empty restricted
  failover domain (that is referred to from existing resource group)

. ccs2pcs* commands now propagate stop timeout of the vm original
  resource agent

. *2pcscmd* commands now support group meta attributes properly

. *2pcscmd* commands no longer emit bogus properties of the operations
  (id, name, interval) as these are position-fixed values in the
  respective pcs syntax, hence not requiring explicit key=value
  treatment

E with {cib,pcs}2pcscmd* commands, clufter no longer chokes on
  validation failures (unless --nocheck provided) due to source CIB
  file using newer "validate-with" validation version specification
  than the only supported so far (pacemaker-1.2.rng) or possibly
  using a syntax not compatible with that; now also 2.0, 2.3, 2.4, and
  2.5 versions are supported
  [resolves: [bug 1300014]]

. with {cib,pcs}2pcscmd* commands, clufter no longer chokes on
  validation failures (unless --nocheck provided) due to source CIB
  not containing "status" section (which is normally the case with
  implicit input located in /var/lib/pacemaker/cib/cib.xml);
  now the bundled, compacted schemas mark this section optional
  and also the recipe to distill such format from pacemaker native
  schemas ensures the same assumption holds even if not pre-existed
  [resolves: [bug 1269964], comment 9]
  [see also: https://github.com/ClusterLabs/pacemaker/pull/957]
. internal representations of command + options/arguments was fixed
  in several ways so as to provide correct outcomes in both general
  (previously, some options could be duplicated while overwriting
  other options/arguments, and standalone negative numbers were
  considered options) and pcs (--wait=X cannot be decoupled the same
  way option parsers can usually cope with, as pcs built-in parser
  treats this specifically) cases

! with *2pcscmd* commands, clufter no longer suggests
  "pcs cluster cib  --config" that doesn't currently work for
  subsequent local-modification pcs commands (which is the purpose
  together with sequence-crowning cib-push in this context), so
  rather use mere "pcs cluster cib "
  [resolves: [bug 1328078]]

. with [cp]cs2pcscmd commands, clufter no longer suggests
  "pcs cluster start --all --wait=-1"  as part of the emitted command
  sequence  (last option decides, through a failure, whether pcs accepts
  a numeric argument there, which would then make the rest of sequence
  use this recent, more elegant provision of pcs instead of "sleep")
  without suppressing both standard and error outputs so as to prevent
  unnecessary clutter with newer, compatible versions of pcs

. with *2pcscmd* 

[Bug 1343661] Rebase clufter component

[bugzilla]

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

Jan Pokorný  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(jpokorny@redhat.c |
   |om) |



--- Comment #14 from Jan Pokorný  ---
Steven, sure, here's what I've compiled from the proposed sources
([comment 1] + [comment 9]), leaving some less important items out,
modifying some of them (denoted with initial 'E' instead of '.')
and marking some especially important with '!':


Bug fixes
=

! ccs2pcs* conversion now properly propagates or adds monitor action
  [resolves: rhbz#1272570]

. ccs2pcs* conversion now (suitably) aborts when it reaches exclusive
  resource group
  [related: rhbz#1206640 (rhbz#1272191)]

. ccs2pcs* conversion now does not take undeployed (contained in
   and not referenced elsewhere) into account and is
  more careful about carrying about parent service group auxiliary
  reference for further processing
  [related/resolves: rhbz#1272592]

! pcs2pcscmd{,-needle} now propagates cluster name correctly,
  previously it was mistakenly dropped resulting in confusing
  first cluster node for that
  (e.g., pcs cluster setup --start --name node1 node2 node3)

. ccs2pcs* conversion now propagates two_node (and internally
  also expected_votes) properties of cman as defined in cluster.conf
  correctly

. help screens/manual pages for *2pcs* commands now documents
  "cib" arguments correctly

. pcs2pcscmd* conversion now correctly includes cmd-wrap filter
  resulting in the output line-wrapped per expectation

. "assisted recovery" now works on systems without /dev/tty as well
  as on systems for which open-modify[open+close] (final close yet
  to come) of particular file won't reliably discover mtime change;
  now strict open-close-modify is used instead (and mtime check in
  a was-file-changed test is preceded with a file size comparison for
  good measure), making intermittent failures in test runs disappear

. clufter is now capable of handling command options as unicode
  (relates to the usage as a library, original discovery thanks
  to pcs) and "the magic interpolation" of the command inputs now
  works at places where it was supposed to but unfortunately did not

! ccs2pcs* commands no longer generate accidentally broken values
  of attributes marked as having an ID type in the schema
  [resolves: rhbz#1300050]

. ccs2pcs* commands now translate notion of recovery/relocate recover
  policy of the resource group as supported by RGManager into the
  parallel expression in Pacemaker universe;  the same applies to
  __independent_subtree=2 at the resource level and empty restricted
  failover domain (that is referred to from existing resource group)

. ccs2pcs* commands now propagate stop timeout of the vm original
  resource agent

. *2pcscmd* commands now support group meta attributes properly

. *2pcscmd* commands no longer emit bogus properties of the operations
  (id, name, interval) as these are position-fixed values in the
  respective pcs syntax, hence not requiring explicit key=value
  treatment

E with {cib,pcs}2pcscmd* commands, clufter no longer chokes on
  validation failures (unless --nocheck provided) due to source CIB
  file using newer "validate-with" validation version specification
  than the only supported so far (pacemaker-1.2.rng) or possibly
  using a syntax not compatible with that; now also 2.0, 2.3, 2.4, and
  2.5 versions are supported
  [resolves: rhbz#1300014]

. with {cib,pcs}2pcscmd* commands, clufter no longer chokes on
  validation failures (unless --nocheck provided) due to source CIB
  not containing "status" section (which is normally the case with
  implicit input located in /var/lib/pacemaker/cib/cib.xml);
  now the bundled, compacted schemas mark this section optional
  and also the recipe to distill such format from pacemaker native
  schemas ensures the same assumption holds even if not pre-existed
  [resolves: rhbz#1269964, comment 9]
  [see also: https://github.com/ClusterLabs/pacemaker/pull/957]
. internal representations of command + options/arguments was fixed
  in several ways so as to provide correct outcomes in both general
  (previously, some options could be duplicated while overwriting
  other options/arguments, and standalone negative numbers were
  considered options) and pcs (--wait=X cannot be decoupled the same
  way option parsers can usually cope with, as pcs built-in parser
  treats this specifically) cases

! with *2pcscmd* commands, clufter no longer suggests
  "pcs cluster cib  --config" that doesn't currently work for
  subsequent local-modification pcs commands (which is the purpose
  together with sequence-crowning cib-push in this context), so
  rather use mere "pcs cluster cib "
  [resolves: rhbz#1328078]

. with [cp]cs2pcscmd commands, clufter no longer 

[Bug 1374055] Review Request: mediawiki127 - A wiki engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374055



--- Comment #2 from Kevin Fenzi  ---
Ugh. Right you are... I thought I checked, but I must have checked the wrong
thing. ;( 

Thanks for catching this. Will ponder if we want to just repoint this to fedora
or drop 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 1349380] Review Request: libzmf - a library for import of Zoner document formats

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349380

David Tardon  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
   Assignee|ignate...@redhat.com|dtar...@redhat.com
Last Closed||2016-09-08 09:58:29



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1372785] Review Request: EPEL7 ONLY python-pyOpenSSL- a python3x build of the pyOpenSSL included in the base distro

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372785



--- Comment #2 from Jim Perrin  ---
Thanks for taking a look at this. 

It's reasonably minimal editing from the base el7 pyOpenSSL src.rpm, so I take
no responsibility for the lack of license file. If it's in the el7 srpm, I'll
see about making sure it's not deleted. Please keep in mind this is for EPEL
only, so not all the fedora enhancements are available. That said, I'll work
through your suggestions.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1370291] Review Request: python-tenacity - Tenacity is a general purpose retrying python library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370291



--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-tenacity

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1324020] Review Request: cassandra - OpenSource database Apache Cassandra

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324020
Bug 1324020 depends on bug 1341272, which changed state.

Bug 1341272 Summary: undefined symbol: sigar_skip_token
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1341272

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG



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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo  ---
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/reactor.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/reactor-2.0.8-1.fc24.src.rpm
- add testng in core pom 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 1336552] Review Request: exodusii - Library to store and retrieve transient finite element data

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336552



--- Comment #8 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
Please post both spec and srpm URL each time you make a revision.

Issues found in current revision:

%install
[...]
cp %{S:1} %{S:2} %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/%{name}

please use either cp -p or install -p here.
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Timestamps)

Could you take a look at the test suite output? It's showing diffs, but there
are apparently only whitespace differences because as far as I can tell all the
numbers are the same.

Please fix this rpmlint warning:

exodusii-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on exodusii/exodusii-libs/libexodusii

This is actually mandated by the guidelines
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package).

-doc subpackage should be noarch (BuildArch: noarch).

Rpmlint (installed packages)

exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c-5.14.0.so /lib64/libhdf5.so.10
exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c-5.14.0.so /lib64/libhdf5_hl.so.10
exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c-5.14.0.so /lib64/libz.so.1
exodusii.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libexoIIv2c-5.14.0.so
exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for-5.14.0.so /lib64/libnetcdf.so.11
exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for-5.14.0.so /lib64/libhdf5.so.10
exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for-5.14.0.so /lib64/libhdf5_hl.so.10
exodusii.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libexoIIv2for-5.14.0.so /lib64/libz.so.1
exodusii-devel.x86_64: W: no-dependency-on exodusii/exodusii-libs/libexodusii

It looks like the libraries are linked to libhdf5 and libhdf5_hl unnecessarily.
That is, they don't seem to reference any symbols from libhdf5*. Please verify
and fix if necessary.

README is packaged twice (once in main package and second time in -doc).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1366843] Review Request: openhft-chronicle-queue - Java library for persisted low latency messaging

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366843



--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #2)

> Issues
> --
> - The full license text of ASL 2.0 must be included in the package
Done
> - The POM is under LGPLv3+
Done
> - There's a newer upstream version available
They are not compatible, for now I am not going to update it


Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/openhft-chronicle-queue.spec
SRPM URL:
https://gil.fedorapeople.org/openhft-chronicle-queue-3.6.2-2.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 1373004] Review Request: rubygem-tzinfo-data - Timezone Data for TZInfo

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373004

Vít Ondruch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||vondr...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Vít Ondruch  ---
I don't think we need this library on Fedora, since rubygem-tzinfo (as the only
possible user of this package to my knowledge) is using system tzdata.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1349380] Review Request: libzmf - a library for import of Zoner document formats

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349380



--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/libzmf

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1373001] Review Request: rubygem-msgpack - MessagePack, a binary-based efficient data interchange format

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373001

Vít Ondruch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ggill...@redhat.com



--- Comment #4 from Vít Ondruch  ---
*** Bug 1209299 has been marked as a duplicate of 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 1209299] Review Request: rubygem-msgpack - MessagePack, a binary-based efficient data interchange format

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1209299

Vít Ondruch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||vondr...@redhat.com
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Last Closed||2016-09-08 08:19:00



--- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch  ---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1373001 ***

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1373003] Review Request: rubygem-string-scrub - String#scrub for Ruby 2.0.0 and 1.9.3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373003

Vít Ondruch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||vondr...@redhat.com



--- Comment #5 from Vít Ondruch  ---
Guys, what is the reason to introduce such library into Fedora? Presumably,
this presumably, this code is already built-in in Ruby 2.3. Please consider to
retire this package immediately.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1372999] Review Request: rubygem-http_parser.rb - Simple callback-based HTTP request/ response parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372999

Vít Ondruch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||vondr...@redhat.com



--- Comment #5 from Vít Ondruch  ---
Just FYI, this [1] is one of the first documents one interested in Fedora
packaging should read. Let me quote from it:

```
Before submitting your request, be sure there’s not a previous request for the
same package. There is a convenient search box on the package review status
page. 
```

It would be nice if you can follow this advice, thx.



[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Create_Your_Review_Request

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1268369] Review Request: rubygem-http_parser.rb - Simple callback-based HTTP request/ response parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268369

Vít Ondruch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Last Closed||2016-09-08 08:06:19



--- Comment #3 from Vít Ondruch  ---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1372999 ***

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1268371] Review Request: rubygem-twitter-stream - Twitter realtime API client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268371

Vít Ondruch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1372999




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372999
[Bug 1372999] Review Request: rubygem-http_parser.rb - Simple
callback-based HTTP request/response parser
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1268371] Review Request: rubygem-twitter-stream - Twitter realtime API client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268371
Bug 1268371 depends on bug 1268369, which changed state.

Bug 1268369 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-http_parser.rb - Simple 
callback-based HTTP request/response parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268369

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1372999] Review Request: rubygem-http_parser.rb - Simple callback-based HTTP request/ response parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372999

Vít Ondruch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1268371
 CC||ilya.grad...@gmail.com



--- Comment #4 from Vít Ondruch  ---
*** Bug 1268369 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268371
[Bug 1268371] Review Request: rubygem-twitter-stream - Twitter realtime API
client
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1373005] Review Request: rubygem-yajl-ruby - Ruby C bindings to the excellent Yajl JSON stream-based parser library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373005

Vít Ondruch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||vondr...@redhat.com
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Last Closed||2016-09-08 08:05:22



--- Comment #1 from Vít Ondruch  ---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 823351 ***

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 823351] Review Request: rubygem-yajl-ruby - Ruby C bindings to YAJL - a JSON stream-based parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823351

Vít Ondruch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||yguen...@redhat.com



--- Comment #18 from Vít Ondruch  ---
*** Bug 1373005 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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

[Bug 1369720] Review Request: tpm2-tools - a TPM2.0 testing tool build upon TPM2.0-TSS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369720



--- Comment #7 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
(In reply to yunying.sun from comment #6)
> Updated SPEC again, to restrict builds to ix86 & x86_64 only by adding:
> ExclusiveArch:  %{ix86} x86_64
> Reason for this change is tool does not support big endian arch, and has
> been verified only on Intel x86 & x86_64.
I would recommend to use ExcludeArch and exclude all arches which are big
endian.

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

[bugzilla]

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

Michael Simacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||msima...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Michael Simacek  ---
Created attachment 1199010
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1199010=edit
build.log

Fails to build for me

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

[Bug 1149176] Review Request: vdsm-jsonrpc-java - jsonrpc communication lib for ovirt

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149176



--- Comment #19 from Piotr Kliczewski  ---
Michael thank you for your feedback. Will follow your suggestions.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1366843] Review Request: openhft-chronicle-queue - Java library for persisted low latency messaging

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366843

Michael Simacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 from Michael Simacek  ---
Package Review
==

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

Issues
--
- The full license text of ASL 2.0 must be included in the package
- The POM is under LGPLv3+
- There's a newer upstream version available


= 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]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "LGPL", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/msimacek/reviews/1366843-openhft-chronicle-
 queue/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: 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]: 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 

[Bug 1374055] Review Request: mediawiki127 - A wiki engine

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374055

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||fed...@famillecollet.com



--- Comment #1 from Remi Collet  ---
> NOTE: this package is intended only for epel7 to provide this LTS version 
> there. 

> Requires: php >= 5.5.9, php-xml, php-mbstring

EL-7 don't have this requirement.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1370291] Review Request: python-tenacity - Tenacity is a general purpose retrying python library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370291

Javier Peña  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #5 from Javier Peña  ---
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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
 (v2.0)". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
 in /tmp/1370291-python-tenacity/licensecheck.txt
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
 process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
 provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 python2-tenacity , python3-tenacity
[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 

[Bug 1149176] Review Request: vdsm-jsonrpc-java - jsonrpc communication lib for ovirt

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149176



--- Comment #18 from Michael Simacek  ---
Looks much better now.

Issues I found so far:
- There are missing BuildRequires, so the package doesn't build in mock. Most
notably "maven-local" package which provides mvn_build. For other maven
dependencies, there are some tools which can help you, see:
https://fedora-java.github.io/howto/snapshot/index.html#error_missing_dependency
- The Release numbering is not correct - you won't be able to update to new
snapshots with this scheme. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning - section about snapshot
packages.
- _use_maven variable is always true, do you need it at all? You could get rid
of it and the many ifs that use it.
- EPEL should contain stable packages that are updated only when there is a
compelling reason, similarly to RHEL. I'm not much familiar with EPEL
guidelines, but I'm afraid you shouldn't/cannot have snapshot package there.
Did you consider packaging stable versions for Fedora and EPEL and using Copr
for snapshots?
- The %description should be improved
- When using mvn_build, you shouldn't specify Requires - they are
autogenerated.
- Changleog entries should contain release at the end. You can use tools like
rpmdev-bumpspec to generate those.

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

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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

[bugzilla]

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

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|domi...@greysector.net
  Flags|fedora-review+  |



--- Comment #28 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
Sure thing.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1065058] Review Request: textql - Execute SQL against structured text like CSV or TSV

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065058



--- Comment #7 from Fabio Alessandro Locati  ---
That is true. I forgot to remove the blocking status from this repo when I got
accepted as a packager. Good catch Parag :) and 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 1065058] Review Request: textql - Execute SQL against structured text like CSV or TSV

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065058

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |



--- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Just found this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062942#c25 and
according to that this review should not block for FE-NEEDSPONSOR queue.


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 1334611] Review Request: python-cvss - CVSS2/ 3 library with interactive calculator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1334611

Viliam Križan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||vkri...@redhat.com



--- Comment #32 from Viliam Križan  ---
Hello,

Is there a reason why some python files are removed for Fedora 22 and less?:
```
rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python2_sitelib}/cvss/cvss3.py*
rm $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{python2_sitelib}/cvss/constants3.py*
```

These should be regular python modules for CVSSv3. Maybe it was mistaken for
python 3 support (?).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1369720] Review Request: tpm2-tools - a TPM2.0 testing tool build upon TPM2.0-TSS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369720



--- Comment #6 from yunying@intel.com ---
Updated SPEC again, to restrict builds to ix86 & x86_64 only by adding:
ExclusiveArch:  %{ix86} x86_64
Reason for this change is tool does not support big endian arch, and has been
verified only on Intel x86 & x86_64.

SPEC: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yunyings/share/master/tpm2-tools.spec
SRPMS:
https://github.com/yunyings/share/raw/master/tpm2-tools-1.1-0.1.beta1.el7.src.rpm
COPR build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/yunyings/tpm2-tools/build/450605/

@Igor, could you help to do the review again? 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 1369708] Review Request: tpm2-tss - TPM2.0 Software Stack

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369708



--- Comment #21 from yunying@intel.com ---
(In reply to yunying.sun from comment #20)
> (In reply to Dmitrij S. Kryzhevich from comment #18)
> > There are still *.la files in -devel. They must not be included.
> *.la removed from SPEC.
> > 
> > Trusted Platform Module *could* be installed (and it did) on arm, ppc or any
> > other platforms. So I do not see any reasons to restrict builds.
> ExclusiveArch removed, so that no restrict builds based on platforms/archs.
> 
Upstream maintainer Philip & Jimmy confirmed that tpm2-tss currently does not
support big endian architecture, and it has been verified only against Intel
x86 & x86_64.

So I updated SPEC again, to restrict builds to ix86 & x86_64 only by adding:
ExclusiveArch:  %{ix86} x86_64

SPEC: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yunyings/share/master/tpm2-tss.spec
SRPMS:
https://github.com/yunyings/share/raw/master/tpm2-tss-1.0-0.1.beta1.el7.src.rpm
Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15539169
COPR build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/yunyings/tpm2-tss/build/450601/

@Dmitrij, could you help to review it again? 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 1373913] Review Request: golint - Linter for Go source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373913

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 1373913] Review Request: golint - Linter for Go source code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373913



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
golint-0-0.1.gitc7bacac.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e7f18dc222

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276



--- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Suggestions:
 As per current packaging guidelines given on
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines

1) use %global instead of %define, See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define

2)  In %install, following is now optional and should be removed
rm -rf %{buildroot}

as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections

3) Group and BuildRoot tag are not needed now, remove them.

4) Good to write every Require: per line

5) Why every package in Requires: need hard versioned requirement? I think
whatever packages are in Fedora should satisfy the requirements and make this
package run without any issues. Onlyif it needs some different version then
that issue need to be fixed like some package need higher version and if its
not yet in Fedora then that package should be updated to that higher version
thus no need to write explicit versions

6) You need to go through https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python which
can tell you we now use explicitly "python2" wherever you have used "python"

7) we don't need now %clean section, remove it

8) You may write your spec accordingly python packaging guidelines.

9) I can't find the 2.1.0 tarball on the given source location, fix this

Submit new SPEC and SRPM by fixing above issues and adding new changelog entry.
Every time you make some change in SPEC, you need to update the release tag and
add changelog.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1349380] Review Request: libzmf - a library for import of Zoner document formats

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349380



--- Comment #7 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #6)
> @Igor, all these macros do is to obscure what they actually do. This is
> featuritis and serves no technical purpose.
> 
> Enforcing them is infantile bureaucracy.

will you force people to remember what is %{_make_output_sync} and all other
macro which could be added in future? Answering why we need macro for this -
EL6/EL7 GNU Make doesn't support "-O", but 4.0+ does.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1372415] python-ryu: Spec update

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372415

Arie Bregman  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed||2016-09-08 03:24:41



--- Comment #7 from Arie Bregman  ---
Yes, I am. Wasn't sure what is the process to update a package. Now I know.
Thank you.

-- 
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 1349380] Review Request: libzmf - a library for import of Zoner document formats

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349380



--- Comment #6 from Ralf Corsepius  ---
@Igor, all these macros do is to obscure what they actually do. This is
featuritis and serves no technical purpose.

Enforcing them is infantile bureaucracy.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 673585] Review Request: perl-Apache-Htgroup - Manage Apache htgroup files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673585

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(hadfieldster@gmai
   ||l.com)



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

[Bug 1374024] Review Request: python-plotcat - Python library for plotting live serial input using matplotlib

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374024

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: plotcat -   |Review Request:
   |plotcat is the python   |python-plotcat - Python
   |library for plotting live   |library for plotting live
   |serial input using  |serial input using
   |matplotlib. |matplotlib



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1374024] Review Request: plotcat - plotcat is the python library for plotting live serial input using matplotlib.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374024



--- Comment #4 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Issues:
===
1) Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
  %{name}.spec.
  Note: plotcat.spec should be python-plotcat.spec
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name


2) Rpmlint
---
Checking: python2-plotcat-1.0.0-2.fc26.noarch.rpm
  python3-plotcat-1.0.0-2.fc26.noarch.rpm
  python-plotcat-1.0.0-2.fc26.src.rpm
python2-plotcat.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C tool to plot live serial
input

==> Start with a capital letter

python2-plotcat.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL v3
==> The valid license tag is "GPLv3", see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses

python2-plotcat.noarch: W: no-documentation
==> This is okay as there really is no documentation files available in source
tarball.

python2-plotcat.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/plotcat/__init__.py /usr/bin/env python
python2-plotcat.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/plotcat/__init__.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
python2-plotcat.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/plotcat/plotcat.py /usr/bin/env python
python2-plotcat.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/plotcat/plotcat.py 644 /usr/bin/env python
==> You can fix this in %prep section as
sed -i -e '/^#!\//, 1d' *.py

python2-plotcat.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary live_plot.py-2
python2-plotcat.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary live_plot.py
python2-plotcat.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary live_plot.py-2.7
==> This is okay as there is no man page provided in source tarball

3) Add some detailed description about your package. Just see the text you have
in README.md

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1349380] Review Request: libzmf - a library for import of Zoner document formats

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1349380



--- Comment #5 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
#--
# Tested features of make
# Output syncronization for parallel make:
%_make_output_sync %(! %{__make} --version -O >/dev/null 2>&1 || echo -O)

#--
# The "make" analogue, hiding the _smp_mflags magic from specs
%make_build %{__make} %{_make_output_sync} %{?_smp_mflags}


Basically %make_build is not anymore same as make %{?_smp_mflags} and I will
work with FPC to enforce such macro.

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