[Bug 1370096] Review Request: rubygem-celluloid-essentials - Internally used tools, and superstructural dependencies of Celluloid

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370096

Vít Ondruch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||vondr...@redhat.com



--- Comment #4 from Vít Ondruch  ---
(In reply to Germano Massullo from comment #3)
> If I am right, enabling tests will require all "development dependencies"
> you can see at [1]. Many of them are not available in Fedora repositories

Well, you probably want to be more precise about what steps you have taken to
enable the tests and what issues you were facing.

You will definitely need some of the dependencies, but you won't need most of
them. It is also possible, the you will need to do some boostrapping round
before you'll be able to enable the tests, but I think it is worth of the
effort.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376869] Review Request: gap-pkg-lpres - Nilpotent quotients of L-presented groups

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376869



--- Comment #2 from Jerry James  ---
Thank you for the review, Tim!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

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

[bugzilla]

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

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #8 from Jerry James  ---
Okay, I still think you're going to wish you had named this python-execdb, but
that's on you now.  This package is APPROVED.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1310873] Review Request: rubygem-async_sinatra - A Sinatra plugin for running on async webservers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310873



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
rubygem-async_sinatra-1.2.1-3.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-cd208a3f8a

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1374138] Review Request: vim-syntastic - A vim plugins to check syntax for programming languages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374138



--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System  ---
vim-syntastic-3.7.0-6.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-2016-02dede1ec5

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1374035] Review Request: pimd - The original PIM-SM multicast routing daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374035



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
pimd-2.3.2-3.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-2016-9a72d1e4a6

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1357728] Review Request: libcint - general GTO integrals for quantum chemistry

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357728



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
libcint-2.8.7-3.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-2016-85faa48618

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1354113] Review Request: python-pytest-catchlog - py.test plugin to catch log messages ( fork of pytest-capturelog)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354113



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pytest-catchlog-1.2.2-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e1602d69d6

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1357724] Review Request: qcint - general GTO integrals for quantum chemistry

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357724



--- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System  ---
qcint-1.8.6-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6a2888ecbe

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1354113] Review Request: python-pytest-catchlog - py.test plugin to catch log messages ( fork of pytest-capturelog)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354113



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pytest-catchlog-1.2.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a3e3bff7b1

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1357728] Review Request: libcint - general GTO integrals for quantum chemistry

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357728



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
libcint-2.8.7-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-4d56f839d1

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1357724] Review Request: qcint - general GTO integrals for quantum chemistry

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357724



--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System  ---
qcint-1.8.6-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-74d77b7c2f

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1374138] Review Request: vim-syntastic - A vim plugins to check syntax for programming languages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374138



--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System  ---
vim-syntastic-3.7.0-6.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-49c8d2132d

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1354113] Review Request: python-pytest-catchlog - py.test plugin to catch log messages ( fork of pytest-capturelog)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354113



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pytest-catchlog-1.2.2-2.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-2016-5ae36859d6

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1357724] Review Request: qcint - general GTO integrals for quantum chemistry

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357724



--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System  ---
qcint-1.8.6-1.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-2016-1227b5a8c2

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1357728] Review Request: libcint - general GTO integrals for quantum chemistry

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1357728



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
libcint-2.8.7-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-fecc59edeb

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1264546] Review Request: soletta - A framework for making IoT devices

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264546



--- Comment #76 from Fedora Update System  ---
soletta-1-1.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1372064] Review Request: lulzbot-marlin-firmware - Marlin firmware files for the Lulzbot family of 3D printers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372064



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
cura-lulzbot-20.03-2.fc24, lulzbot-marlin-firmware-20.03-2.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1367699] Review Request: python-sphinx-theme-py3doc-enhanced - Theme based on the theme of https:/ /docs.python.org/3/

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1367699



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-sphinx-theme-py3doc-enhanced-2.3.2-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora
24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376710] Review Request: python-packaging - Core utilities for Python packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376710



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-packaging-16.7-1.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #25 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Jerry Snitselaar from comment #22)
> > cat /etc/fedora-release 
> Fedora release 24 (Twenty Four)
> > rpmlint --version
> rpmlint version 1.9 Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Frederic Lepied, Mandriva
> > rpm -qf `which rpmlint`
> rpmlint-1.9-3.fc24.noarch
> 
> > rpmlint tss2.spec ../SRPMS ../RPMS
> tss2.spec:14: E: buildarch-instead-of-exclusivearch-tag x86_64 ppc64le
> armv7hl i686
> tss2.src:14: E: buildarch-instead-of-exclusivearch-tag x86_64 ppc64le
> armv7hl i686
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicysigned
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvwritelock
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvread
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicyrestart
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssevictcontrol
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssshutdown
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvcertify
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssquote
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssunseal
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicypcr
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicyor
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsssequenceupdate
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssrsadecrypt
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsssetprimarypolicy
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvundefinespace
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicycommandcode
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvwrite
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvchangeauth
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssverifysignature
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssgetrandom
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvextend
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssrsaencrypt
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssactivatecredential
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicygetdigest
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsscontextload
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssgetsessionauditdigest
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsscreateprimary
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssclockrateadjust
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssduplicate
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsssignapp
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsshash
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssreadpublic
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsssign
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsscreate
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsshmac
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsswriteapp
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicynvwritten
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssloadexternal
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicyauthvalue
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsscreateek
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsshmacstart
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssclearcontrol
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicyauthorize
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsseventextend
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsssequencecomplete
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsschangeeps
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspcrallocate
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvdefinespace
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicysecret
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssrewrap
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsseventsequencecomplete
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspcrevent
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspowerup
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssimport
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvsetbits
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssclockset
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicycphash
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssload
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicymaker
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsscontextsave
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvreadlock
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsshierarchychangeauth
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssgetcommandauditdigest
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssnvreadpublic
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsshashsequencestart
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsseccparameters
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssstartauthsession
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicymakerpcr
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssmakecredential
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tssobjectchangeauth
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsshierarchycontrol
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspcrextend
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tsspolicypassword
> tss2.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary 

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #24 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Tomas Mraz from comment #23)
> I'll review this package.
> 
> My comments:
> 
> Use ExclusiveArch instead of BuildArch and in general follow
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> Guidelines?rd=PackagingGuidelines#Architecture_Support
> If the reason for building on just the architectures specified is that the
> other platforms do not have the hardware needed, then please at least add a
> comment about this fact to the spec.
> 
> The build is nonstandard and does not apply RPM_OPT_FLAGS and LDFLAGS during
> the build which means that hardening and optimalization is not applied. This
> must be fixed too.

Thanks for taking time to review this package!

The developer has been using nonstandard variables such as LNFLAGS (as opposed
to LDFLAGS) and CCFLAGS (for CFLAGS) etc.  There were other compile flags such
as CCLFLAGS for compiling library and CCAFLAGS for compiling application.

Would that be OK to keep the naming of those nonstandard variables, while I'm
making sure that the build includes hardending and optimalization with the
RPM_OPT_FLAGS?



Vicky

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1378160] Review Request: jitterentropy-rngd - RNGD based on CPU Jitter RNG

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378160



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/jitterentropy-rngd

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1378160] Review Request: jitterentropy-rngd - RNGD based on CPU Jitter RNG

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378160

Nathaniel McCallum  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Nathaniel McCallum  ---
Review PASSED

Please contact upstream about packaging a separate license file:

[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %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) GPL (unversioned/unknown version)", "Unknown or
 generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/nmccallu/jitterentropy-rngd/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1377631] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-netspeed - A gnome-shell extension to show speed of the internet

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377631



--- Comment #3 from MartinKG  ---
Spec URL:
https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/gnome-shell-extension-netspeed.spec
SRPM URL:
https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/gnome-shell-extension-netspeed-3.17-0.3.20160806git16a25ec.fc24.src.rpm

%changelog
* Wed Sep 21 2016 Martin Gansser  -
3.17-0.3.20160806git16a25ec
- Add LICENSE 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1374948] Review Request: dynamips - Cisco router emulator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374948

Athmane Madjoudj  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(athma...@gmail.co |
   |m)  |



--- Comment #5 from Athmane Madjoudj  ---
Thank you for reviewing.

The attempts for packaging dynamips was from the community, not me, I created
this spec from scratch, I'll provide the links for this if needed. 

Regarding the exception for the Build Requirements, I think it was removed
since the buildroot will be minimized (like removing perl, compiler, make
etc...), fedora-review tool still uses the old guidelines.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1374947] Review Request: vpcs - Virtual PC Simulator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374947



--- Comment #3 from Athmane Madjoudj  ---
(In reply to Michal Ruprich from comment #2)
...

> - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
>   are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
>   Note: These BR are not needed: gcc make
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
> 
>   ##Consider removing gcc and make from requires since they are not 
> needed,
> both are required by default
> 
...

Thank you for reviewing, AFAIK this requirement was removed since the buildroot
will be minimized (like removing perl, compiler, make etc...), I think
fedora-review tool still uses the old guidelines.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376436] Review Request: bitstream - Simpler access to binary structures such as specified by MPEG , DVB, IETF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376436



--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo  ---
NON blocking issues:
"Group:" fields are no more necessary. Please remove

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376436] Review Request: bitstream - Simpler access to binary structures such as specified by MPEG , DVB, IETF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376436



--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo  ---
Issues:
- Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: bitstream : /usr/include/bitstream/atsc/a52.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/common.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/ci.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/bat.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/bat_print.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/datetime.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_40.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_41.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_42.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_43.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_44.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_45.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_46.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_47.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_48.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_49.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_4a.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_4b.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_4c.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_4d.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_4e.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_4f.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_50.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_51.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_52.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_53.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_54.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_55.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_56.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_57.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_58.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_59.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_5a.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_5b.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_5c.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_5d.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_5e.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_5f.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_60.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_61.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_62.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_63.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_64.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_65.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_66.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_67.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_68.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_69.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_6a.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_6b.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_6c.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_6d.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_6e.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_7a.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_7b.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_7c.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_83p28.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_88p28.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/descs_list.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/dit.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/dit_print.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/eit.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/eit_print.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/nit.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/nit_print.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/numbers.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/rst.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/rst_print.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/sdt.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/sdt_print.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/sit.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/sit_print.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/st.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/strings.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/tdt.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/tdt_print.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/tot.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/tot_print.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si_print.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/sim.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/sub.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/ieee/ethernet.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/ietf/ip.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/ietf/rtcp.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/ietf/rtp.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/ietf/rtp3551.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/ietf/rtp6184.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/ietf/rtp7587.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/ietf/udp.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/mpeg/aac.h 

[Bug 1376436] Review Request: bitstream - Simpler access to binary structures such as specified by MPEG , DVB, IETF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376436



--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: bitstream : /usr/include/bitstream/atsc/a52.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/common.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/ci.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/bat.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/bat_print.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/datetime.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_40.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_41.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_42.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_43.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_44.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_45.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_46.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_47.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_48.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_49.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_4a.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_4b.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_4c.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_4d.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_4e.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_4f.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_50.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_51.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_52.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_53.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_54.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_55.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_56.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_57.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_58.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_59.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_5a.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_5b.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_5c.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_5d.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_5e.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_5f.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_60.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_61.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_62.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_63.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_64.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_65.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_66.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_67.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_68.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_69.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_6a.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_6b.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_6c.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_6d.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_6e.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_7a.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_7b.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_7c.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_83p28.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/desc_88p28.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/descs_list.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/dit.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/dit_print.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/eit.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/eit_print.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/nit.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/nit_print.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/numbers.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/rst.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/rst_print.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/sdt.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/sdt_print.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/sit.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/sit_print.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/st.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/strings.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/tdt.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/tdt_print.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/tot.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si/tot_print.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/si_print.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/sim.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/dvb/sub.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/ieee/ethernet.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/ietf/ip.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/ietf/rtcp.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/ietf/rtp.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/ietf/rtp3551.h bitstream :
  /usr/include/bitstream/ietf/rtp6184.h bitstream 

[Bug 1376436] Review Request: bitstream - Simpler access to binary structures such as specified by MPEG , DVB, IETF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376436

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1377877] Review Request: luksmeta - Utility for storing small metadata in the LUKSv1 header

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377877



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/luksmeta

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1378160] Review Request: jitterentropy-rngd - RNGD based on CPU Jitter RNG

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378160

Nathaniel McCallum  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||npmccal...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|npmccal...@redhat.com



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376450] Review Request: libdvbpsi - Library for MPEG TS and DVB PSI tables decoding and generation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376450



--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo  ---
Issues:
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
  (~1MB) or number of files.
  Note: Documentation size is 5826560 bytes in 680 files.
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
 Please, add subpackage doc

NON blocking issues:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
 Is not necessary for genrate the documentation?

libdvbpsi.src:1: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 1)

"Group:" fields are no more necessary. Please remove

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1373666] Review Request: hddfancontrol - Control system fan speed by monitoring hard drive temperature

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373666



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/hddfancontrol

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1377876] Review Request: jose - Tools for JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377876



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/jose

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376450] Review Request: libdvbpsi - Library for MPEG TS and DVB PSI tables decoding and generation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376450

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: gcc
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
 IGNORE
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
  in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
  for the package is included in %license.
  Note: License file structdvbpsi__copyright__dr__s.html is not marked as
  %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
 IGNORE
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
  (~1MB) or number of files.
  Note: Documentation size is 5826560 bytes in 680 files.
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
 Please, add subpackage doc

= 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]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
 address)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "WTFPL WTFPL
 (v2)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 18 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/gil/1376450-libdvbpsi/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: 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:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
 Is not necessary for 

[Bug 1376436] Review Request: bitstream - Simpler access to binary structures such as specified by MPEG , DVB, IETF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376436

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||punto...@libero.it
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376450] Review Request: libdvbpsi - Library for MPEG TS and DVB PSI tables decoding and generation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376450



--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo  ---
Spec URL:
https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/cgit/free/libdvbpsi.git/plain/libdvbpsi.spec
SRPM URL:
http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/development/rawhide/Everything/source/SRPMS/l/libdvbpsi-1.3.0-2.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376450] Review Request: libdvbpsi - Library for MPEG TS and DVB PSI tables decoding and generation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376450



--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo  ---
Spec URL:
https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/cgit/free/libdvbpsi.git/tree/libdvbpsi.spec
SRPM URL:
http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/development/rawhide/Everything/source/SRPMS/l/libdvbpsi-1.3.0-2.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376450] Review Request: libdvbpsi - Library for MPEG TS and DVB PSI tables decoding and generation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376450



--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo  ---
fedora-review fails:
Error 404 downloading
http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/development/rawhide/Everything/source/SRPMS/l/libdvbpsi-1.3.0-1.fc24.src.rpm

Please, adapt spec file to current guideline

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1377877] Review Request: luksmeta - Utility for storing small metadata in the LUKSv1 header

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377877

Paul Wouters  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Paul Wouters  ---

Package PASSED - minor updates needed


Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
  Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in libluksmeta
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
  in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
  for the package is included in %license.
  Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

- Use %license instead of %doc in rawhide

- Check the missing requires section below for some of the interpackage
warnings it showed.

Personal Pet Peeves of reviewer:
==
I don't like macros in URL: or Source: as it makes it harder to select
the target url. I personally only use macros where "re-use" makes sense,
like post/pre/etc service names.

Use %{buildroot} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ?

= 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.
[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)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or
 generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/paul/fedora/1377877-luksmeta/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: 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.

[Bug 1376450] Review Request: libdvbpsi - Library for MPEG TS and DVB PSI tables decoding and generation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376450

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||punto...@libero.it
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376450] Review Request: libdvbpsi - Library for MPEG TS and DVB PSI tables decoding and generation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376450

Tom "spot" Callaway  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tcall...@redhat.com
 Depends On|182235 (FE-Legal)   |



--- Comment #1 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
Yeah. I think this is okay to go into Fedora now. Lifting FE-Legal.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235
[Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376436] Review Request: bitstream - Simpler access to binary structures such as specified by MPEG , DVB, IETF

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376436

Tom "spot" Callaway  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tcall...@redhat.com
 Depends On|182235 (FE-Legal)   |



--- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
There is no issue here. Thanks for letting me check it first.

Lifting FE-Legal.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235
[Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1378077] Review Request: jetty-test-helper - Jetty toolchain test helper

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378077



--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo  ---
Issues:
- Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
  Note: Jar files in source (see attachment)
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre-
  built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software'
 Please, remove
./jetty.toolchain-jetty-test-helper-3.1/eclipse-signing-maven-plugin/src/main/resources/org.eclipse.equinox.p2.jarprocessor_1.0.200.v20100503a.jar

[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.

[!]: Package does not include license text files separate 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1378077] Review Request: jetty-test-helper - Jetty toolchain test helper

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378077



--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
  Note: Jar files in source (see attachment)
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre-
  built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software'
 Please, remove

= 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)", "EPL-1.0", "Unknown or generated". 14 files
 have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/gil/1378077-jetty-test-helper/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 contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 

[Bug 1378077] Review Request: jetty-test-helper - Jetty toolchain test helper

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378077

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1377876] Review Request: jose - Tools for JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377876

Paul Wouters  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Paul Wouters  ---


Package is ready Just incorporate the minor fixes needed specified below.

PASSED



Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
  Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in libjose, libjose-openssl, libjose-zlib
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
  in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
  for the package is included in %license.
  Note: License file COPYING is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

- %license should be used instead of %doc in the rawhide package

- Check the missing requires section below for some of the interpackage
warnings it showed.

Personal Pet Peeves of reviewer:
==
I don't like macros in URL: or Source: as it makes it harder to select
the target url. I personally only use macros where "re-use" makes sense,
like post/pre/etc service names.

Use %{buildroot} instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ?

= 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.
[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)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated".
 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/paul/1377876-jose/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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 

[Bug 1378077] Review Request: jetty-test-helper - Jetty toolchain test helper

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378077

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo  ---
Could be possible import also the jetty-setuid module/s ?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1378021] Review Request: jetty-alpn - Jetty implementation of ALPN API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378021



--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo  ---
Build fails:

[INFO] --- maven-compiler-plugin:3.5.1:testCompile (default-testCompile) @
alpn-tests ---
[INFO] Changes detected - recompiling the module!
[INFO] Compiling 5 source files to
/builddir/build/BUILD/jetty-alpn-alpn-project-8.1.9.v20160720/alpn-tests/target/test-classes
[INFO] -
[ERROR] COMPILATION ERROR : 
[INFO] -
[ERROR]
/builddir/build/BUILD/jetty-alpn-alpn-project-8.1.9.v20160720/alpn-tests/src/test/java/org/mortbay/jetty/alpn/AbstractALPNTest.java:[196,27]
select(java.util.List) in  cannot implement
select(java.util.List) in
org.eclipse.jetty.alpn.ALPN.ServerProvider
  overridden method does not throw javax.net.ssl.SSLException
[ERROR]
/builddir/build/BUILD/jetty-alpn-alpn-project-8.1.9.v20160720/alpn-tests/src/test/java/org/mortbay/jetty/alpn/AbstractALPNTest.java:[233,25]
selected(java.lang.String) in  cannot implement
selected(java.lang.String) in org.eclipse.jetty.alpn.ALPN.ClientProvider
  overridden method does not throw javax.net.ssl.SSLException
[ERROR]
/builddir/build/BUILD/jetty-alpn-alpn-project-8.1.9.v20160720/alpn-tests/src/test/java/org/mortbay/jetty/alpn/AbstractALPNTest.java:[248,27]
select(java.util.List) in  cannot implement
select(java.util.List) in
org.eclipse.jetty.alpn.ALPN.ServerProvider
  overridden method does not throw javax.net.ssl.SSLException
[INFO] 3 errors 
[INFO] -
[INFO] 
[INFO] 
[INFO] Skipping Jetty :: ALPN :: Project
[INFO] This project has been banned from the build due to previous failures.
[INFO] 
[INFO] 
[INFO] Reactor Summary:
[INFO] 
[INFO] Jetty :: ALPN :: Project ... SUCCESS [  0.441 s]
[INFO] Jetty :: ALPN :: Boot .. SUCCESS [  4.183 s]
[INFO] Jetty :: ALPN :: Tests . FAILURE [  0.465 s]
[INFO] 
[INFO] BUILD FAILURE
[INFO] 
[INFO] Total time: 7.496 s
[INFO] Finished at: 2016-09-21T19:05:55+02:00
[INFO] Final Memory: 25M/174M
[INFO] 
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal
org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin:3.5.1:testCompile
(default-testCompile) on project alpn-tests: Compilation failure: Compilation
failure:
[ERROR]
/builddir/build/BUILD/jetty-alpn-alpn-project-8.1.9.v20160720/alpn-tests/src/test/java/org/mortbay/jetty/alpn/AbstractALPNTest.java:[196,27]
select(java.util.List) in  cannot implement
select(java.util.List) in
org.eclipse.jetty.alpn.ALPN.ServerProvider
[ERROR] overridden method does not throw javax.net.ssl.SSLException
[ERROR]
/builddir/build/BUILD/jetty-alpn-alpn-project-8.1.9.v20160720/alpn-tests/src/test/java/org/mortbay/jetty/alpn/AbstractALPNTest.java:[233,25]
selected(java.lang.String) in  cannot implement
selected(java.lang.String) in org.eclipse.jetty.alpn.ALPN.ClientProvider
[ERROR] overridden method does not throw javax.net.ssl.SSLException
[ERROR]
/builddir/build/BUILD/jetty-alpn-alpn-project-8.1.9.v20160720/alpn-tests/src/test/java/org/mortbay/jetty/alpn/AbstractALPNTest.java:[248,27]
select(java.util.List) in  cannot implement
select(java.util.List) in
org.eclipse.jetty.alpn.ALPN.ServerProvider
[ERROR] overridden method does not throw javax.net.ssl.SSLException
[ERROR] -> [Help 1]

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1378077] Review Request: jetty-test-helper - Jetty toolchain test helper

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378077

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||punto...@libero.it
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1378021] Review Request: jetty-alpn - Jetty implementation of ALPN API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378021

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||punto...@libero.it
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370096] Review Request: rubygem-celluloid-essentials - Internally used tools, and superstructural dependencies of Celluloid

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370096



--- Comment #3 from Germano Massullo  ---
Let's talk first about tests, because I think it is the biggest part to deal
with.
If I am right, enabling tests will require all "development dependencies" you
can see at [1]. Many of them are not available in Fedora repositories

[1]: https://rubygems.org/gems/celluloid-essentials/versions/0.20.5

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1378160] New: Review Request: jitterentropy-rngd - RNGD based on CPU Jitter RNG

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378160

Bug ID: 1378160
   Summary: Review Request: jitterentropy-rngd - RNGD based on CPU
Jitter RNG
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: pwout...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/jitterentropy-rngd/jitterentropy-rngd.spec
SRPM URL:
ftp://ftp.nohats.ca/jitterentropy-rngd/jitterentropy-rngd-1.0.3-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: The CPU Jitter Random Number Generator provides a non-physical
true
random number generator that works equally in kernel and user land. The
only prerequisite is the availability of a high-resolution timer that
is available in modern CPUs.

Upon starting as a service, it will block until it has written 256 bytes
of entropy (which happens almost immediately)

A whitepaper is available at:
http://www.chronox.de/jent/doc/CPU-Jitter-NPTRNG.pdf

Fedora Account System Username: pwouters

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1373666] Review Request: hddfancontrol - Control system fan speed by monitoring hard drive temperature

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373666

Tim Flink  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Tim Flink  ---
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.
[x ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
[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]: 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.
[-]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: 

[Bug 1376899] Review Request: pcaudiolib - Portable C Audio Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376899

Petr Menšík  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review+  |fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from Petr Menšík  ---
Add %dir %{_includedir}/pcaudiolib into %files devel in spec, include directory
is unowned. Consider using %{_includedir}/%{name} instead.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370096] Review Request: rubygem-celluloid-essentials - Internally used tools, and superstructural dependencies of Celluloid

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370096



--- Comment #2 from Jun Aruga  ---
Hi I reviewed it!

# Summary

- Dot files.
  You can do following way to prevenet rpmlint warnings "hidden-file-or-dir",
  removing the lines %{gem_instdir}/.gitmodules, and etc.
  I would recommend you use rpmlint tool by yourself.

```
%files
...
%exclude %{gem_instdir}/.*
...
```

- Group tag 
  Personally I have never added Group in the spec file.
  So, could you tell me why it is needed?

- I think that you can remove the comment out lines "# BuildRequires: *" to
simplify
  though it is generated from gem2rpm template.

- Add test logic in %check section.
  Upstream has test logic.
  So, you can add the test logic.
  See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Running_test_suites
  See .travis.yml, spec/, and
https://travis-ci.org/celluloid/celluloid-essentials

  I think first step to run the test, is run the upstream test on your local,
  Because of this error.

```
$ git clone g...@github.com:celluloid/celluloid-essentials.git
$ cd celluloid-essentials/
$ bundle install --path vendor/bundle
[!] There was an error parsing `Gemfile`: cannot load such file --
/home/jaruga/git/celluloid-essentials/culture/sync. Bundler cannot continue.

 #  from /home/jaruga/git/celluloid-essentials/Gemfile:1 
 #  ---
 >  require File.expand_path("../culture/sync", __FILE__)
 #  Celluloid::Sync::Gemfile[self]
 #  ---

```

- %files section
  I want to suggest the way
  - %files: only License document, and minimam files to run the library.
  - %files doc: other documents.

  - %{gem_instdir}/CHANGES.md
Move to %files doc section with
  %doc %{gem_instdir}/CHANGES.md
  - %{gem_instdir}/tasks
Move to %files doc





# The result of Fedora review

$ fedora-review -b 1370096





Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines


= 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
 upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
 licenses manually.
[X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[X]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
 /usr/share/gems/doc
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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.
[X]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[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]: 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 

[Bug 1377877] Review Request: luksmeta - Utility for storing small metadata in the LUKSv1 header

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377877

Paul Wouters  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||pwout...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pwout...@redhat.com



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376900] Review Request: espeak-ng - eSpeak NG Text-to-Speech

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376900



--- Comment #4 from Petr Menšík  ---
See also https://lists.debian.org/debian-accessibility/2016/09/msg00123.html
about ieee80.c license.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1372718] Review Request: rubygem-puma - A simple, fast, threaded, and highly concurrent HTTP 1.1 server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372718



--- Comment #25 from Jun Aruga  ---
(In reply to Jun Aruga from comment #24)
> (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #23)
> > The reviewer should be assignee of this ticket [1]:
> > 
> > ```
> > if you want to formally review the package, set the fedora-review flag to ?
> > and assign the bug to yourself. 
> > ```
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer
> 
> What do you mean?
> I have pushed it by myself.

Understand it. Please ignore me.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376900] Review Request: espeak-ng - eSpeak NG Text-to-Speech

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376900



--- Comment #3 from Petr Menšík  ---
licensecheck.txt:

*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)

espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/de_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/fa_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/ky_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/phsource/ph_kyrgyz
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/include/espeak-ng/speak_lib.h
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/include/espeak/speak_lib.h

BSD (2 clause)
--
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/compat/getopt.c

GPL (v3 or later)
-
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/en_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/fa_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/fr_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/fr_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/ky_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/ta_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/espeak-ng.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/include/compat/getopt.h
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/include/compat/math.h
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/include/compat/stdint.h
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/include/compat/string.h
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/include/compat/strings.h
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/include/compat/sys/stat.h
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/include/compat/unistd.h
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/include/espeak-ng/espeak_ng.h
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/compiledata.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/compiledict.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/compilembrola.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/dictionary.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/error.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/error.h
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/espeak_api.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/espeak_command.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/espeak_command.h
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/event.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/event.h
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/fifo.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/fifo.h
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/intonation.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/klatt.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/klatt.h
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/mbrowrap.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/mbrowrap.h
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/numbers.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/phoneme.h
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/phonemelist.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/readclause.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/setlengths.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/sintab.h
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/spect.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/spect.h
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/speech.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/speech.h
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/synth_mbrola.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/synthdata.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/synthesize.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/synthesize.h
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/tr_languages.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/translate.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/translate.h
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/voice.h
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/voices.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/wavegen.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/speak-ng.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/windows/com/comentrypoints.c
espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/windows/com/ttsengine.cpp

Unknown or generated

espeak-ng-1.49.0/CHANGELOG.md
espeak-ng-1.49.0/COPYING
espeak-ng-1.49.0/README.md
espeak-ng-1.49.0/autogen.sh
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/ReadMe
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/af_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/af_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/am_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/am_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/an_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/an_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/as_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/as_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/az_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/az_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/bg_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/bg_listx
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/bg_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/bn_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/bn_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/ca_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/ca_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/cs_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/cs_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/cy_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/cy_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/da_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/da_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/de_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/el_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/el_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/en_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/eo_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/eo_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/es_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/es_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/et_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/et_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/eu_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/eu_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/extra/ru_listx
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/extra/zh_listx
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/extra/zhy_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/fi_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/fi_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/ga_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/ga_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/gd_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/gd_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/gn_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/gn_rules
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/grc_list
espeak-ng-1.49.0/dictsource/grc_rules

[Bug 1372718] Review Request: rubygem-puma - A simple, fast, threaded, and highly concurrent HTTP 1.1 server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372718



--- Comment #24 from Jun Aruga  ---
(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #23)
> The reviewer should be assignee of this ticket [1]:
> 
> ```
> if you want to formally review the package, set the fedora-review flag to ?
> and assign the bug to yourself. 
> ```
> 
> 
> 
> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer

What do you mean?
I have pushed it by myself.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376900] Review Request: espeak-ng - eSpeak NG Text-to-Speech

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376900



--- Comment #2 from Petr Menšík  ---
Package Review
==

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


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


= 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]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[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: "BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v3
 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 1254 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/1376900-espeak-ng/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners:
 /usr/share/vim/vimfiles/ftdetect, /usr/share/vim/vimfiles/syntax,
 /usr/share/vim, /usr/share/vim/vimfiles
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
 License of espeak-ng-1.49.0/src/libespeak-ng/ieee80.c is not GPL
compatible.
 Variant with acceptable license should might be for example:
 http://www.realitypixels.com/turk/opensource/ToFromIEEE.c.txt
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
 Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 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: 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:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
 Note: first uses parallel macro for binaries, then non-parallel for
 the rest
[-]: If the source package does not include license 

[Bug 1372718] Review Request: rubygem-puma - A simple, fast, threaded, and highly concurrent HTTP 1.1 server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372718

Vít Ondruch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|jar...@redhat.com   |pval...@redhat.com



--- Comment #23 from Vít Ondruch  ---
The reviewer should be assignee of this ticket [1]:

```
if you want to formally review the package, set the fedora-review flag to ? and
assign the bug to yourself. 
```



[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1372718] Review Request: rubygem-puma - A simple, fast, threaded, and highly concurrent HTTP 1.1 server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372718



--- Comment #22 from Jun Aruga  ---
OK thanks.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1372718] Review Request: rubygem-puma - A simple, fast, threaded, and highly concurrent HTTP 1.1 server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372718

Jun Aruga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
   Fixed In Version||rubygem-puma-3.6.0-3.fc26
   Assignee|pval...@redhat.com  |jar...@redhat.com



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1372718] Review Request: rubygem-puma - A simple, fast, threaded, and highly concurrent HTTP 1.1 server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372718



--- Comment #21 from Vít Ondruch  ---
Just comment out the specific test. Optionally, you can enable the test if some
flag is specified (Bundler has a lot of tests which needs internet
connectivity, so they are typically disabled, but can be enabled if the mock is
executed with --with-tests flag or something similar [1]).

I would not bother upstream with that. I can imagine that is not their concern
...


[1]
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/rubygem-bundler.git/tree/rubygem-bundler.spec#n3

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1372718] Review Request: rubygem-puma - A simple, fast, threaded, and highly concurrent HTTP 1.1 server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372718



--- Comment #20 from Jun Aruga  ---
OK, thank you for the information.

By the way, I found a test that needs internet connection (test.com).
The test test_timeout_in_data_phase have passed by change.
But it causes tests take long time with no internet environment.

I checked it with inserting the debug log.
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4615/15734615/build.log

So, I would skip this test right now, asking to upstream.
https://github.com/puma/puma/issues/1098

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1378095] New: Review Request: rst2odp - Converter for rst to OpenOffice Impress

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378095

Bug ID: 1378095
   Summary: Review Request: rst2odp - Converter for rst to
OpenOffice Impress
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: f...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rst2odp.spec
SRPM URL: https://fale.fedorapeople.org/rpms/rst2odp-0.3.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Converter for rst to OpenOffice Impress
Fedora Account System Username: fale

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1378077] New: Review Request: jetty-test-helper - Jetty toolchain test helper

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378077

Bug ID: 1378077
   Summary: Review Request: jetty-test-helper - Jetty toolchain
test helper
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: msima...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Blocks: 652183 (FE-JAVASIG)



Spec URL:
http://msimacek.fedorapeople.org/review/jetty-test-helper/jetty-test-helper.spec
SRPM URL:
http://msimacek.fedorapeople.org/review/jetty-test-helper/jetty-test-helper-3.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Unit Testing Support for Jetty (common classes for some unit
tests).
Fedora Account System Username: msimacek


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1329125] Review Request: python-oslo-privsep - OpenStack library for privilege separation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329125



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1377733] Review Request: systemd-bootchart - Boot performance graphing tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377733



--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/systemd-bootchart

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1377812] Review Request: python-sphinxcontrib-blockdiag - Sphinx " blockdiag" extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377812



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1325671] Review Request: jol - Java Object Layout

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1325671



--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo  ---
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jol.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jol-0.6-1.fc24.src.rpm

- update to 0.6

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1377733] Review Request: systemd-bootchart - Boot performance graphing tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377733

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Also:
BuildRequires: systemd-units → not necessary, you have BR:systemd-devel already

Please put something in description that explains to newcomers what this
package does: e.g. "This package provides a binary which can be started during
boot early boot to capture informations about processes and services launched
during bootup. Resource utilization and process information are collected
during the boot process and are later rendered in an SVG chart. The timings for
each services are displayed separately."

Looks great otherwise.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1374947] Review Request: vpcs - Virtual PC Simulator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374947



--- Comment #2 from Michal Ruprich  ---
Package Review
==

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


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

##Consider removing gcc and make from requires since they are not needed,
both are required by default

= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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).
[!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.

##Because this beeing a svn snapshot version, it would be good to name it
according to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#NonNumericRelease

[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
 Note: Could not download Source0: https://sourceforge.net/code-
 snapshots/svn/v/vp/vpcs/code/vpcs-code-126-trunk.zip
 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags

##Double check the link, I wasn't able to connect to it

[-]: 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 vpcs-
 debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: 

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

[bugzilla]

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

Germano Massullo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Whiteboard|to do: initialize git repo; |
   |make first bodhi release|



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1348202] Review Request: rubygem-pcaprub - libpcap bindings for ruby

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348202

Germano Massullo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Whiteboard|to do: initialize git repo; |
   |make first bodhi release|



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1374948] Review Request: dynamips - Cisco router emulator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374948

Michal Ruprich  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo-



--- Comment #4 from Michal Ruprich  ---
Ok I found a note about emulators and the only way to include this would be to
provide licenses to the mips microcode as you mentioned at the beginning. I did
the review at least on everything that was possible but you should pay
attention to the "Package functions as described" part. I commented on that so
if I am wrong about this don't hesitate to correct me.

If you could provide a link to the review request you posted last time (the one
that got rejected) it might give me some more insight on the emulator issue. 

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

##Consider removing these dependencies, both are required by default thus
no reason to explicitly require them here

= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.

##Described below

[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 309 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/mruprich/devel/rev/dynamips/1374948-dynamips/licensecheck.txt

##1. All the files need to be licensed under the same license that is
specified in the spec file
 Either add the license(s) into each file or create a separate file and
add %license pointing to this file in the spec file
##2. I am not able to include this in Fedora until the binary blob is
permitted by owner and licensed under Fedora permissible license

[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 143360 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %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.

[Bug 1348202] Review Request: rubygem-pcaprub - libpcap bindings for ruby

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348202

Germano Massullo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|rubygem-pcaprub - libpcap   |Review Request:
   |bindings for ruby   |rubygem-pcaprub - libpcap
   ||bindings for ruby



--- Comment #9 from Germano Massullo  ---
I was trying to change the title due
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/request/package/ error message "Invalid
title for this bugzilla ticket (no "-" present)"

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370096] Review Request: rubygem-celluloid-essentials - Internally used tools, and superstructural dependencies of Celluloid

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370096

Germano Massullo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|rubygem-celluloid-essential |Review Request:
   |s - Internally used tools,  |rubygem-celluloid-essential
   |and superstructural |s - Internally used tools,
   |dependencies of Celluloid   |and superstructural
   ||dependencies of Celluloid



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370158] Review Request: rubygem-celluloid-supervision - Celluloid Supervision

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370158

Germano Massullo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|rubygem-celluloid-supervisi |Review Request:
   |on - Celluloid Supervision  |rubygem-celluloid-supervisi
   ||on - Celluloid Supervision



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370138] Review Request: rubygem-celluloid-fsm - Celluloid Finite State Machines

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370138

Germano Massullo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|rubygem-celluloid-fsm - |Review Request:
   |Celluloid Finite State  |rubygem-celluloid-fsm -
   |Machines|Celluloid Finite State
   ||Machines



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370135] Review Request: rubygem-celluloid-extras - Celluloid expansion, testing, and example classes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370135

Germano Massullo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|rubygem-celluloid-extras -  |Review Request:
   |Celluloid expansion,|rubygem-celluloid-extras -
   |testing, and example|Celluloid expansion,
   |classes |testing, and example
   ||classes



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370153] Review Request: rubygem-celluloid-pool - An implementation of an actor pool, based on the Celluloid concurrent object framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370153

Germano Massullo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|rubygem-celluloid-pool - An |Review Request:
   |implementation of an actor  |rubygem-celluloid-pool - An
   |pool, based on the  |implementation of an actor
   |Celluloid concurrent object |pool, based on the
   |framework   |Celluloid concurrent object
   ||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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1348202] rubygem-pcaprub - libpcap bindings for ruby

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348202

Germano Massullo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: |rubygem-pcaprub - libpcap
   |rubygem-pcaprub - libpcap   |bindings for ruby
   |bindings for ruby   |



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376900] Review Request: espeak-ng - eSpeak NG Text-to-Speech

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376900

Petr Menšík  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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1378014] Review Request: perl-IO-FDPass - Pass a file descriptor over a socket

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378014

Paul Howarth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1378028




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378028
[Bug 1378028] Review Request: perl-MCE-Shared - MCE extension for sharing
data, supporting threads and processes
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376899] Review Request: pcaudiolib - Portable C Audio Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376899

Petr Menšík  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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1378028] Review Request: perl-MCE-Shared - MCE extension for sharing data, supporting threads and processes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378028

Paul Howarth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1378014




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378014
[Bug 1378014] Review Request: perl-IO-FDPass - Pass a file descriptor over
a socket
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1378028] New: Review Request: perl-MCE-Shared - MCE extension for sharing data, supporting threads and processes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378028

Bug ID: 1378028
   Summary: Review Request: perl-MCE-Shared - MCE extension for
sharing data, supporting threads and processes
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: p...@city-fan.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/perl-MCE-Shared/branches/fedora/perl-MCE-Shared.spec

SRPM URL:
http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/perl-MCE-Shared/perl-MCE-Shared-1.804-2.fc26.src.rpm

Description:
This module provides data sharing capabilities for MCE, supporting threads and
processes. MCE::Hobo provides threads-like parallelization for running code
asynchronously.

Fedora Account System Username: pghmcfc

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1372718] Review Request: rubygem-puma - A simple, fast, threaded, and highly concurrent HTTP 1.1 server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372718



--- Comment #19 from Vít Ondruch  ---
(In reply to Pavel Valena from comment #2)
> *** build.log errors
>  * In %build section there is
> ```
> To see why this extension failed to compile, please check the mkmf.log which
> can be found here:
>   /builddir/build/BUILD/puma-3.6.0/usr/lib64/gems/ruby/puma-3.6.0/mkmf.log
> ```
> But the .so is packaged. Is this false positive?
> 
>  * In %install section:
> ```
> cpio:
> puma-3.6.0/usr/share/gems/gems/puma-3.6.0/ext/puma_http11/ext/puma_http11/
> http11_parser.c: Cannot stat: No such file or directory
> cpio:
> puma-3.6.0/usr/share/gems/gems/puma-3.6.0/ext/puma_http11/ext/puma_http11/
> http11_parser.rl: Cannot stat: No such file or directory
> ```
> Is this also false positive?

Just for the record, this is very likely RubyGems issue and it is definitely
false positive. More over, the "please check the mkmf.log" is just misleading
... But I never bothered to investigate what is the real cause here.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376899] Review Request: pcaudiolib - Portable C Audio Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376899



--- Comment #1 from Petr Menšík  ---
Package Review
==

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


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


= 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]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/1376899-pcaudiolib/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/include/pcaudiolib
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/pcaudiolib
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
 Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package 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:
[-]: 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
 pcaudiolib-devel , pcaudiolib-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not 

[Bug 1372718] Review Request: rubygem-puma - A simple, fast, threaded, and highly concurrent HTTP 1.1 server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372718



--- Comment #18 from Jun Aruga  ---
(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #17)
> (In reply to Jun Aruga from comment #15)
> > - Delete Patch1: rubygem-puma-3.6.0-update-testhelp-path.patch
> > - find test -name '*.rb' -exec sed -i "s|test/testhelp|testhelp|" {} \;
> 
> Well, I said "you can keep it like this" but anyway, since you made the
> changes, then IMO the least effort would be to add both "." as well as
> "test" on the load path and you can avoid the sed line entirely.
> 
> Thanks for opening the upstream discussion though.
> 
> > Could you check this?
> 
> Otherwise the patch looks good.

OK I added "." on the load path, and removed the sed line.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1372718] Review Request: rubygem-puma - A simple, fast, threaded, and highly concurrent HTTP 1.1 server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372718



--- Comment #17 from Vít Ondruch  ---
(In reply to Jun Aruga from comment #15)
> - Delete Patch1: rubygem-puma-3.6.0-update-testhelp-path.patch
> - find test -name '*.rb' -exec sed -i "s|test/testhelp|testhelp|" {} \;

Well, I said "you can keep it like this" but anyway, since you made the
changes, then IMO the least effort would be to add both "." as well as "test"
on the load path and you can avoid the sed line entirely.

Thanks for opening the upstream discussion though.

> Could you check this?

Otherwise the patch looks good.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1378021] Review Request: jetty-alpn - Jetty implementation of ALPN API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378021

Michael Simacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: jetty-alpn  |Review Request: jetty-alpn
   |- Jetty implementation of   |- Jetty implementation of
   |APLN API|ALPN API



--- Comment #1 from Michael Simacek  ---
Fixed typo in summary
Spec URL: https://msimacek.fedorapeople.org/jetty-alpn.spec
SRPM URL:
https://msimacek.fedorapeople.org/jetty-alpn-8.1.9-1.v20160720.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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1378021] New: Review Request: jetty-alpn - Jetty implementation of APLN API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378021

Bug ID: 1378021
   Summary: Review Request: jetty-alpn - Jetty implementation of
APLN API
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: msima...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Blocks: 652183 (FE-JAVASIG)



Spec URL: http://msimacek.fedorapeople.org/review/jetty-alpn/jetty-alpn.spec
SRPM URL:
http://msimacek.fedorapeople.org/review/jetty-alpn/jetty-alpn-8.1.9-1.v20160720.fc24.src.rpm
Description: A pure Java(TM) implementation of the Application Layer Protocol
Negotiation TLS Extension
Fedora Account System Username: msimacek


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1378014] New: Review Request: perl-IO-FDPass - Pass a file descriptor over a socket

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378014

Bug ID: 1378014
   Summary: Review Request: perl-IO-FDPass - Pass a file
descriptor over a socket
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: p...@city-fan.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/perl-IO-FDPass/branches/fedora/perl-IO-FDPass.spec

SRPM URL:
http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/perl-IO-FDPass/perl-IO-FDPass-1.1-2.fc26.src.rpm

Description:
This small low-level module only has one purpose: pass a file descriptor to
another process, using a (streaming) unix domain socket (on POSIX systems) or
any (streaming) socket (on WIN32 systems). The ability to pass file descriptors
on Windows is currently the unique selling point of this module. Have I
mentioned that it is really small, too?

Fedora Account System Username: pghmcfc

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1372718] Review Request: rubygem-puma - A simple, fast, threaded, and highly concurrent HTTP 1.1 server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372718



--- Comment #16 from Jun Aruga  ---
> > *** build.log errors
> >  * In %build section there is
> > ```
> > To see why this extension failed to compile, please check the mkmf.log which
> > can be found here:
> >   /builddir/build/BUILD/puma-3.6.0/usr/lib64/gems/ruby/puma-3.6.0/mkmf.log
> > ```
> > But the .so is packaged. Is this false positive?
> 
> Let me check it.

Hi Pavel,

After asking to the upstream on below page, it looks false positive.

https://github.com/puma/puma/issues/1074

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org