date:20160929

[Bug 1327979] Review Request: python-jupyter-notebook - A web-based notebook environment for interactive computing

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327979



--- Comment #8 from Thomas Spura  ---
(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #7)
> (In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #6)
> > Also depends on python(3)-nbconvert for which I see no package request yet.
> 
> I have submitted a python-nbconvert review request but that depends on some
> other stuff which I have also submitted,


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 1379092] Review Request: python-QtAwesome - FontAwesome icons in PyQt and PySide applications

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379092



--- Comment #7 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
Spec URL:
https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtAwesome/python-QtAwesome.spec
SRPM URL:
https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtAwesome/python-QtAwesome-0.3.3-4.fc24.src.rpm

- added license tag, doc and provides.

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

[Bug 1279090] Review Request: sdl2-cs - C# wrapper for SDL2

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279090



--- Comment #5 from Matthias Mailänder  ---
This is a dependency you should bundle with OpenRA as we are also the upstream
for our fork.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1379091] Review Request: python-QtPy - Provides an abstraction layer on top of the various Qt bindings (PyQt5, PyQt4 and PySide) and additional custom QWidgets

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091



--- Comment #9 from gil cattaneo  ---
have time for this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380140 ?
thanks in advance

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1379092] Review Request: python-QtAwesome - FontAwesome icons in PyQt and PySide applications

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379092

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



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

[Bug 1379091] Review Request: python-QtPy - Provides an abstraction layer on top of the various Qt bindings (PyQt5, PyQt4 and PySide) and additional custom QWidgets

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091



--- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo  ---
Maybe you could add %doc CHANGELOG.md README.md for each pythonX sub packages

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

[Bug 1379091] Review Request: python-QtPy - Provides an abstraction layer on top of the various Qt bindings (PyQt5, PyQt4 and PySide) and additional custom QWidgets

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo  ---
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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 24 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1379091-python-
 QtPy/licensecheck.txt
  License:MIT and BSD

License: BSD.
./qtpy/_patch/qcombobox.py

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
./qtpy/_patch/qcombobox.py PyQt4 ... ?
[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

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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 python2-QtPy , python3-QtPy
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should

[Bug 1379092] Review Request: python-QtAwesome - FontAwesome icons in PyQt and PySide applications

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379092



--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo  ---
Maybe you could add %doc README.md for each pythonX sub packages

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

[Bug 1379092] Review Request: python-QtAwesome - FontAwesome icons in PyQt and PySide applications

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379092

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:
===
- 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 12 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1379092
 -python-QtAwesome/licensecheck.txt

  License:MIT and OFL

License: OFL.
./qtawesome/fonts/fontawesome-webfont.ttf
./qtawesome/fonts/elusiveicons-webfont.ttf

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[?]: 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]: 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

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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
 Note: Package contains font files
# License: OFL.
#./qtawesome/fonts/fontawesome-webfont.ttf
Provides:  bundled(elusiveicons-fonts) = 001.000
#./qtawesome/fonts/elusiveicons-webfont.ttf
Provides:  bundled(fontawesome-fonts) = 4.4.1
[-]: 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

[Bug 1379091] Review Request: python-QtPy - Provides an abstraction layer on top of the various Qt bindings (PyQt5, PyQt4 and PySide) and additional custom QWidgets

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091



--- Comment #6 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
Well, changed Source URL anyway ... :)

Spec URL:
https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtPy/python-QtPy.spec
SRPM URL:
https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtPy/python-QtPy-1.1.2-3.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 1379091] Review Request: python-QtPy - Provides an abstraction layer on top of the various Qt bindings (PyQt5, PyQt4 and PySide) and additional custom QWidgets

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   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 1379094] Review Request: python-flit - Simplified packaging of Python modules

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379094



--- Comment #13 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
Thanks for the review, gil.

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

[Bug 1379092] Review Request: python-QtAwesome - FontAwesome icons in PyQt and PySide applications

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379092

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   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 1279085] Review Request: maxmind-geoip2 - GeoIP2 webservice and database API

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279085



--- Comment #13 from Matthias Mailänder  ---
Yes https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/pull/12132 but the .NET to .NET Core
changes seem to cause NuGet dependency problems at least on Windows.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1379094] Review Request: python-flit - Simplified packaging of Python modules

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379094

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



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

[Bug 1379092] Review Request: python-QtAwesome - FontAwesome icons in PyQt and PySide applications

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379092



--- Comment #4 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
Fixed.

Spec URL:
https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtAwesome/python-QtAwesome.spec
SRPM URL:
https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtAwesome/python-QtAwesome-0.3.3-3.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 1379094] Review Request: python-flit - Simplified packaging of Python modules

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379094



--- Comment #12 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
(In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #10)
> As shown in the package for entrypoints [1], `flit` will attempt to verify
> PyPI classifiers while building packages. This is great for PyPI, but kind
> of useless for us, because we're generally pulling tagged releases that
> managed to make it to PyPI, and I don't think Fedora uses the classifiers
> for anything, anyway.
> 
> It's probably not good to have to re-create that work on every package using
> `flit`. I'm not sure if it should be a macro provided by this package, or
> whether this package should provide a cache of the classifier list in a
> system location. Or maybe we can just ask `flit` developers to add a
> `--no-verify-classifiers` sort of option.
> 
> Just something to think about; maybe ask the Python SIG.
> 
> [1]
> https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-
> entrypoints/python-entrypoints.spec

Probably a good idea in general. At this point, entrypoints is the only package
using flit in fedora (I think) ... but, this would be an issue as more packages
start using it. I do like --no-verify option request. Perhaps I can submit an
RFE ...

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1379094] Review Request: python-flit - Simplified packaging of Python modules

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379094



--- Comment #11 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
Done!

Spec URL:
https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-flit/python-flit.spec
SRPM URL:
https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-flit/python-flit-0.9-3.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 1379094] Review Request: python-flit - Simplified packaging of Python modules

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379094



--- Comment #10 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
As shown in the package for entrypoints [1], `flit` will attempt to verify PyPI
classifiers while building packages. This is great for PyPI, but kind of
useless for us, because we're generally pulling tagged releases that managed to
make it to PyPI, and I don't think Fedora uses the classifiers for anything,
anyway.

It's probably not good to have to re-create that work on every package using
`flit`. I'm not sure if it should be a macro provided by this package, or
whether this package should provide a cache of the classifier list in a system
location. Or maybe we can just ask `flit` developers to add a
`--no-verify-classifiers` sort of option.

Just something to think about; maybe ask the Python SIG.

[1]
https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-entrypoints/python-entrypoints.spec

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

[Bug 1379091] Review Request: python-QtPy - Provides an abstraction layer on top of the various Qt bindings (PyQt5, PyQt4 and PySide) and additional custom QWidgets

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091



--- Comment #5 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
I am using this format ...

Source0:  https://github.com/OWNER/%{name}/archive/%{commit0}.tar.gz basically
...

also, this is the same tarball - 

$ sha256sum ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/v1.1.2.tar.gz qtpy-1.1.2.tar.gz 
7cffde4f4baef3a34076aeea93e18abc861f89fc1f210b6bc39c502526d5d9f9 
/home/mukundan/rpmbuild/SOURCES/v1.1.2.tar.gz
7cffde4f4baef3a34076aeea93e18abc861f89fc1f210b6bc39c502526d5d9f9 
qtpy-1.1.2.tar.gz

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1270525] Review Request: maxmind-db - Reader for the MaxMind DB Database Format

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270525



--- Comment #8 from Matthias Mailänder  ---
Looking good so far. https://github.com/OpenRA/OpenRA/pull/12132

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1379094] Review Request: python-flit - Simplified packaging of Python modules

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379094



--- Comment #9 from gil cattaneo  ---
>  Most of the sources file are devoid of this information.
>  Please, contact upstream and ask to confirm the licensing of code and/or
> content/s, and add license headers

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/
LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification

Is still valid

(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #7)
> Looking at the source code of both upload.py and log.py, we can call it more
> of a fork rather than bundled really ... Even looking at history of the file.

This is a practice commonly used, to modify the original code to fit better for
their own purposes

Please, add:

this comment near to license field

# ./flit/logo.py  under ASL 2.0 license
# ./flit/upload.py under PSF license

and

# https://pypi.python.org/pypi/tornado
# ./flit/logo.py unkown version
Provides:bundled(python-tornado)

> As for upload.py, it is *based* on python-distutils. Looking at the source,
> I do not *think* it is bundled here ... 
OK

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1379091] Review Request: python-QtPy - Provides an abstraction layer on top of the various Qt bindings (PyQt5, PyQt4 and PySide) and additional custom QWidgets

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091



--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo  ---
Please, use https://github.com/spyder-ide/qtpy/archive/v1.1.2/qtpy-1.1.2.tar.gz
Otherwise you should use the approach shown here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Git_Hosting_Services

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1379092] Review Request: python-QtAwesome - FontAwesome icons in PyQt and PySide applications

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379092



--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo  ---
Please, use
https://github.com/spyder-ide/qtawesome/archive/v0.3.3/qtawesome-0.3.3.tar.gz
Otherwise you should use the approach shown here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Git_Hosting_Services

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1327989] Review Request: python-jupyter-client - Jupyter protocol implementation and client libraries

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327989



--- Comment #14 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
Thanks for the build tomspur.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1379096] Review Request: python-nbconvert - Converting Jupyter Notebooks

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379096

Mukundan Ragavan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1327979




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327979
[Bug 1327979] Review Request: python-jupyter-notebook - A web-based
notebook environment for interactive computing
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1327979] Review Request: python-jupyter-notebook - A web-based notebook environment for interactive computing

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1327979

Mukundan Ragavan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||nonamed...@gmail.com
 Depends On||1379096



--- Comment #7 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
(In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #6)
> Also depends on python(3)-nbconvert for which I see no package request yet.

I have submitted a python-nbconvert review request but that depends on some
other stuff which I have also submitted,

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379096



Added depends on.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379096
[Bug 1379096] Review Request: python-nbconvert - Converting Jupyter
Notebooks
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1379094] Review Request: python-flit - Simplified packaging of Python modules

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379094



--- Comment #8 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
Spec URL:
https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-flit/python-flit.spec
SRPM URL:
https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-flit/python-flit-0.9-2.fc24.src.rpm


Assuming the bundling issue is sorted out, other issues should be fixed with
this spec & srpm.

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

[Bug 1379094] Review Request: python-flit - Simplified packaging of Python modules

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379094



--- Comment #7 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
Looking at the source code of both upload.py and log.py, we can call it more of
a fork rather than bundled really ... Even looking at history of the file.

python-tornado - log.py
https://github.com/tornadoweb/tornado/blob/master/tornado/log.py

python-flit - log.py
https://github.com/takluyver/flit/blob/master/flit/log.py


As for upload.py, it is *based* on python-distutils. Looking at the source, I
do not *think* it is bundled here ... 

Can you please check? 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 1379091] Review Request: python-QtPy - Provides an abstraction layer on top of the various Qt bindings (PyQt5, PyQt4 and PySide) and additional custom QWidgets

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379091



--- Comment #3 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
Also fixed most issues .. hopefully.

Spec URL:
https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtPy/python-QtPy.spec
SRPM URL:
https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtPy/python-QtPy-1.1.2-2.fc24.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1379092] Review Request: python-QtAwesome - FontAwesome icons in PyQt and PySide applications

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379092



--- Comment #2 from Mukundan Ragavan  ---
Spec URL:
https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtAwesome/python-QtAwesome.spec
SRPM URL:
https://nonamedotc.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/python-packages/python-QtAwesome/python-QtAwesome-0.3.3-2.fc24.src.rpm


This should address all the issues (as far as I can tell).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1336552] Review Request: exodusii - Library to store and retrieve transient finite element data

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
exodusii-6.02-4.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-ef86cfeae3

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1379709] Review Request: python-epi - Tool for looking at the entry point plugins on a system

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379709

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-epi-0.1-3.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-2016-7df2442f2a

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

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #40 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #39)
> (In reply to lo1 from comment #38)
> > Previusly, as I saw Yunying's koji and copr output built fine in the
> > rawhide, I did a little digging and found that gcc and gcc-c++ are the
> > exceptions.  The "exception" section in the link below stated that: 
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/HOWTOFindMissingBuildRequires
> > 
> > Now, I'm wondering if that exception is a very recent rule, which wouldn't
> > apply to an older release like Fed24.
> 
> That page is not part of the official packaging guidelines (not under
> Packaging:) and is not up to date.  For example, perl was recently pulled
> from the buildroot.
Good to know.  Thanks! I have to develop the habit of checking the 'history'
now!

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

[Bug 1380540] New: Review Request: votca-xtp - VOTCA excitation and charge properties module

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380540

Bug ID: 1380540
   Summary: Review Request: votca-xtp - VOTCA excitation and
charge properties module
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jungh...@votca.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://junghans.github.io/fedora-review/votca-xtp/votca-xtp.spec
SRPM URL:
http://junghans.github.io/fedora-review/votca-xtp/votca-xtp-1.4-0.1rc1.fc26.src.rpm

Description: Versatile Object-oriented Toolkit for Coarse-graining Applications
(VOTCA) is a package intended to reduce the amount of routine work when doing
systematic coarse-graining of various systems. The core is written in C++.
This package contains the excitation and charge properties module of VOTCA
package.

Fedora Account System Username: junghans

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15864420
fedora-review run on travis-ci:
Review.txt: http://junghans.github.io/fedora-review/votca-xtp/review.txt
Build log: https://travis-ci.org/junghans/fedora-review/builds/163869819
Raw Build log:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/archive.travis-ci.org/jobs/163869820/log.txt

cmake option -DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS_RELEASE="-DNDEBUG -O1" needed to avoid running
out of memory on koji

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1329838] Review Request: ghc-uglymemo - A simple (but internally ugly ) memoization function

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329838

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-09-29 18:53:23



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
ghc-uglymemo-0.1.0.1-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pytest-catchlog-1.2.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1369708] Review Request: tpm2-tss - TPM2.0 Software Stack

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #39 from Orion Poplawski  ---
(In reply to lo1 from comment #38)
> Previusly, as I saw Yunying's koji and copr output built fine in the
> rawhide, I did a little digging and found that gcc and gcc-c++ are the
> exceptions.  The "exception" section in the link below stated that: 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/HOWTOFindMissingBuildRequires
> 
> Now, I'm wondering if that exception is a very recent rule, which wouldn't
> apply to an older release like Fed24.

That page is not part of the official packaging guidelines (not under
Packaging:) and is not up to date.  For example, perl was recently pulled from
the buildroot.

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

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #38 from l...@us.ibm.com ---
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #35)
> (In reply to yunying.sun from comment #31)
> > (In reply to lo1 from comment #30)
> > > Changelog needs to be updated every time you make changes:
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/
> > > Guidelines#Changelogs
> > > 
> > Thanks for the review Vicky. About change logs, on wiki it says "Every time
> > you make changes, that is, whenever you increment the E-V-R of a package,
> > add a changelog entry. ". My understanding is only when version and/or
> > release is updated, changelog needed. 
> > 
> > In my case, the target version/release is the package's first release,
> > 1.0-beta1, not changed. So I suppose it's better not to log every detailed
> > changes which I made to fix issues found during review, otherwise the
> > changelog would be long and full of minor details. Is it acceptable?
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The package failed to build on Fedora 24 (x86_64) as below:
> > > 
> > Your build failed due to not finding g++. But on koji build server and COPR,
> > this package does compile successfully. I did local rpmbuild on my desktop
> > with RHEL 7.3 Alpha(No Fedora 24 environment so far). Does Fedora 24 local
> > build is mandatory for new package?
> All BuildRequires must be specified. Even gcc/gcc-c++.

Previusly, as I saw Yunying's koji and copr output built fine in the rawhide, I
did a little digging and found that gcc and gcc-c++ are the exceptions.  The
"exception" section in the link below stated that: 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/HOWTOFindMissingBuildRequires

Now, I'm wondering if that exception is a very recent rule, which wouldn't
apply to an older release like Fed24.

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

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

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

Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-09-29 18:03:44



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1376438] Review Request: dvblast - Simple and powerful streaming application

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376438
Bug 1376438 depends on bug 1376436, which changed state.

Bug 1376436 Summary: Review Request: bitstream - Simpler access to binary 
structures such as specified by MPEG, DVB, IETF
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376436

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1271785] Review Request: nodejs-bcryptjs - bcrypt encryption for NodeJS

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271785

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review-



--- Comment #4 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
Seems that the source has multiple licenses, they all need to be specified.

dist dir needs to be installed. Binary as well. Not sure about externs dir.


%build
%nodejs_symlink_deps --check
 ^^ shouldn't this be --build


%{?nodejs_find_provides_and_requires}
%{!?_licensedir:%global license %doc}
These macros are not needed anymore

tests seem to be included in npm package now. Is the separate download still
needed?

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

[Bug 1380528] New: Review Request: multicat - Simple and efficient multicast and transport stream manipulation

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380528

Bug ID: 1380528
   Summary: Review Request: multicat - Simple and efficient
multicast and transport stream manipulation
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: kwiz...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://dl.kwizart.net/review/multicat.spec
SRPM URL: http://dl.kwizart.net/review/multicat-2.1-1.fc26.src.rpm
Description: Simple and efficient multicast and transport stream manipulation
Fedora Account System Username: kwizart

Koji scratch build
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15863655

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1354018] Review Request: nodejs-utfx - A compact library to encode, decode and convert UTF8 / UTF16

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354018

Piotr Popieluch  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 1354018] Review Request: nodejs-utfx - A compact library to encode, decode and convert UTF8 / UTF16

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354018

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|vanmeeuwen+fedora@kolabsys. |piotr1...@gmail.com
   |com |
  Flags|fedora-review?  |



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

[Bug 1354018] Review Request: nodejs-utfx - A compact library to encode, decode and convert UTF8 / UTF16

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354018



--- Comment #5 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
Approved

You should fix line ending in README.md
nodejs-utfx.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/nodejs-utfx/README.md




Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/piotr/fedora-
 scm/1354018-nodejs-utfx/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/lib/node_modules/utfx(this, [y/N]:, Is, ok),
 /usr/lib/node_modules/utfx/node_modules(this, [y/N]:, Is, ok),
 /usr/share/licenses/nodejs-utfx(this, [y/N]:, Is, ok), /usr/share/doc
 /nodejs-utfx(this, [y/N]:, Is, ok),
 /usr/lib/node_modules/utfx/dist(this, [y/N]:, Is, ok)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %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

[Bug 1354018] Review Request: nodejs-utfx - A compact library to encode, decode and convert UTF8 / UTF16

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354018



--- Comment #4 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
updated SRPM

Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-utfx/nodejs-utfx.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-utfx/nodejs-utfx-1.0.1-2.fc26.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1279091] Review Request: openra-eluant - Lua C# bindings

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279091



--- Comment #9 from Raphael Groner  ---
SPEC: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openra/openra-eluant.spec
SRPM:
https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/openra/openra-eluant-20160124-2.fc25.src.rpm

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15863033

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1380178] Review Request: zsh-grml - Configuration files for zsh from the Grml project

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380178

Christian Dersch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||lupi...@mailbox.org
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lupi...@mailbox.org
 Whiteboard|Trivial |
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from Christian Dersch  ---
Taken, some first hints: Be careful to avoid conflicts with default zsh config!
Mock install fails with

DEBUG util.py:502:  Executing command: ['/usr/bin/dnf', '--installroot',
'/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/', '--releasever', '26',
'--disableplugin=local', '--setopt=deltarpm=false', 'install',
'/home/review/1380178-zsh-grml/res
ults/zsh-grml-0.12.6-1.fc26.noarch.rpm', '--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts'] with
env {'SHELL': '/bin/bash', 'LANG': 'en_US.UTF-8', 'HOSTNAME': 'mock',
'PROMPT_COMMAND': 'printf "\\033]0;\\007"', 'PS1': '
\\s-\\v\\$ 
', 'HOME': '/builddir', 'LC_MESSAGES': 'C', 'PATH':
'/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin', 'TERM': 'vt100'} and shell False
DEBUG util.py:421:  Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:08 ago on Thu Sep 29
20:58:48 2016.
DEBUG util.py:421:  Dependencies resolved.
DEBUG util.py:421: 

DEBUG util.py:421:   Package Arch  Version   
Repository   Size
DEBUG util.py:421: 

DEBUG util.py:421:  Installing:
DEBUG util.py:421:   zsh x86_645.2-5.fc24
fedora  2.7 M
DEBUG util.py:421:   zsh-grmlnoarch0.12.6-1.fc26 
@commandline 75 k
DEBUG util.py:421:  Transaction Summary
DEBUG util.py:421: 

DEBUG util.py:421:  Install  2 Packages
DEBUG util.py:421:  Total size: 2.7 M
DEBUG util.py:421:  Total download size: 2.7 M
DEBUG util.py:421:  Installed size: 6.5 M
DEBUG util.py:421:  Downloading Packages:
DEBUG util.py:421: 

DEBUG util.py:421:  Total   3.6 MB/s |
2.7 MB 00:00 
DEBUG util.py:421:  Running transaction check
DEBUG util.py:421:  Transaction check succeeded.
DEBUG util.py:421:  Running transaction test
DEBUG util.py:421:  Error: Transaction check error:
DEBUG util.py:421:file /etc/skel/.zshrc conflicts between attempted
installs of zsh-grml-0.12.6-1.fc26.noarch and zsh-5.2-5.fc24.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:421:  Error Summary
DEBUG util.py:421:  -
DEBUG util.py:557:  Child return code was: 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 1279091] Review Request: openra-eluant - Lua C# bindings

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279091



--- Comment #8 from Raphael Groner  ---
Easy fix for lua51:
sed -i s:lua51.dll:liblua-5.1.so: %{libname}/LuaApi.cs

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342

Tom "spot" Callaway  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tcall...@redhat.com



--- Comment #5 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
I'm looking into this.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1279090] Review Request: sdl2-cs - C# wrapper for SDL2

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279090



--- Comment #4 from Raphael Groner  ---
What's the state in OpenRA? Is SDL2-CS still a dependency? If no, I'll close
this request. For OpenAL-CS, we need another package 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 1279085] Review Request: maxmind-geoip2 - GeoIP2 webservice and database API

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1279085



--- Comment #12 from Raphael Groner  ---
Matthias,
does OpenRA work also with the MaxMind GeoIP 2.7.x series?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1270525] Review Request: maxmind-db - Reader for the MaxMind DB Database Format

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270525



--- Comment #7 from Raphael Groner  ---
Matthias,
does OpenRA work also with the MaxMind DB 2.1.x series?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1166916] Review Request: fuzzynet - Fuzzy Logic Library for Mono

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166916

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Whiteboard||NotReady



--- Comment #22 from Raphael Groner  ---
The license issue is a clear blocker.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1378341] Review Request: fedpkg-copr - copr dist-git client

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378341

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Neal Gompa  ---
Looks good to me.

PACKAGE APPROVED

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

[Bug 1378341] Review Request: fedpkg-copr - copr dist-git client

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378341



--- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa  ---
Package Review
==

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


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/makerpm/1378341-fedpkg-copr/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[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]: 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
 Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: 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]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

= EXTRA items =

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
 Note: There are rpmlint

[Bug 1380442] Review Request: ripgrep - A search tool that combines the usability of ag with the raw speed of grep

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380442



--- Comment #1 from Carl George  ---
My goal is to add this package to F24+ and EPEL7.  The build requirement of
cargo is already in F24/F25/rawhide, but is still in testing for EPEL7. 
Hopefully by the time this review is done it will have moved to stable.

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-88fc43e690

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1380442] New: Review Request: ripgrep - A search tool that combines the usability of ag with the raw speed of grep

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380442

Bug ID: 1380442
   Summary: Review Request: ripgrep - A search tool that combines
the usability of ag with the raw speed of grep
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: carl.geo...@rackspace.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://carlgeorge.fedorapeople.org/ripgrep/ripgrep.spec
SRPM URL:
https://carlgeorge.fedorapeople.org/ripgrep/ripgrep-0.2.1-1.el7.src.rpm

Description:
ripgrep is a command line search tool that combines the usability of The Silver
Searcher (an ack clone) with the raw speed of GNU grep. ripgrep is fast, cross
platform, and written in Rust.

Fedora Account System Username: carlgeorge

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1350257] Review Request: petsc - Portable Extensible Toolkit for Scientific Computation

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #34 from Antonio Trande  ---
(In reply to Dave Love from comment #33)
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #31)
> > Sorry, I have already updated to 3.7.3
> 
> I'll check it a.s.a.p.
> 
> > > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> > > 
> > > Not run -- why not?  (I thought they were previously.)
> > 
> > They're passed on my PC but not on COPR or Koji, i don't know why.
> 
> Is that just the MPI ones?  If so, it's probably because openmpi needs ssh
> but doesn't require it.  I should check how to avoid the rsh component.

No.
'ex50' example is already failed with serial libraries first:

export
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=%{?el6:%{_libdir}/papi-5.1.1/%{_prefix}/lib:}%{_libdir}:$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libdir}
export PETSC_DIR=%{_builddir}/%{name}-%{version}/%{name}-%{version}
export PETSC_ARCH=%{_arch}

# Linear Poisson equation on a 2D grid
make ex50 -C %{name}-%{version}/src/ksp/ksp/examples/tutorials
%{name}-%{version}/src/ksp/ksp/examples/tutorials/ex50 -da_grid_x 4 -da_grid_y
4 -mat_view

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1336552] Review Request: exodusii - Library to store and retrieve transient finite element data

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
exodusii-6.02-4.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-3ec60759ec

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1374957] Review Request: python-colorspacious - Perform colorspace conversions accurately and easily

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374957

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ON_QA



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-colorspacious-1.0.0-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-ad3ba918f9

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1378341] Review Request: fedpkg-copr - copr dist-git client

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378341



--- Comment #3 from cl...@redhat.com ---
Thanks. Updated versions:

Spec URL: http://clime.cz/fedpkg-copr.spec
SRPM URL: http://clime.cz/fedpkg-copr-0.8-1.fc23.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 1380420] Review Request: gomtree - Go CLI tool for mtree support

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380420

Lokesh Mandvekar  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 1380420] New: Review Request: gomtree - Go CLI tool for mtree support

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380420

Bug ID: 1380420
   Summary: Review Request: gomtree - Go CLI tool for mtree
support
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: l...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://lsm5.fedorapeople.org/gomtree/gomtree.spec
SRPM URL:
https://lsm5.fedorapeople.org/gomtree/SRPMS/gomtree-0-0.1.git8c6b32c.fc26.src.rpm

Description:
Go CLI tool for mtree support

Fedora Account System Username: lsm5

koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15860784

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1350257] Review Request: petsc - Portable Extensible Toolkit for Scientific Computation

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #33 from Dave Love  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #31)
> Sorry, I have already updated to 3.7.3

I'll check it a.s.a.p.

> > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> > 
> > Not run -- why not?  (I thought they were previously.)
> 
> They're passed on my PC but not on COPR or Koji, i don't know why.

Is that just the MPI ones?  If so, it's probably because openmpi needs ssh but
doesn't require it.  I should check how to avoid the rsh component.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1350257] Review Request: petsc - Portable Extensible Toolkit for Scientific Computation

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

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

Dave Love  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(d.love@liverpool. |
   |ac.uk)  |



--- Comment #32 from Dave Love  ---
(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #30)
> Actually, current guidelines would have you list gcc-c++

Yes, though I always listed it as documentation.  However, it's just occurred
to me that g++ doesn't actually get run, according to the output, so that BR
can be dropped in the final version.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1350257] Review Request: petsc - Portable Extensible Toolkit for Scientific Computation

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #31 from Antonio Trande  ---
Sorry, I have already updated to 3.7.3

SPEC:
http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/sagitter/petsc/petsc.git/plain/petsc.spec?id=ea9cded7030999e4f51dde529cae5647e5cc5173

SRPM:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/petsc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00459215-petsc/petsc-3.7.3-1.fc26.src.rpm

> [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> 
> Not run -- why not?  (I thought they were previously.)

They're passed on my PC but not on COPR or Koji, i don't know why.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1379709] Review Request: python-epi - Tool for looking at the entry point plugins on a system

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379709



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 769487] Review Request: python-glumpy - Small python library for rapid visualization of numpy arrays

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769487

Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(kwiz...@gmail.com |
   |)   |



--- Comment #13 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
- 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.txt is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- Changelog: Fix missing space indent with "initial spec file"
- You might need to package for both python2/3 stacks
- Probably a missing requires when importing scipy.weave
- Update the requires to the current package name (python2-pyopengl, etc).


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "CeCILL", "BSL (v1)",
 "Unknown or generated". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output
 of licensecheck in /home/builder/769487-python-glumpy/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 839680 bytes in 32 files.
[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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
 Note: Could not download Source0:
 http://glumpy.googlecode.com/files/glumpy-0.2.1.tar.gz
 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query

[Bug 769487] Review Request: python-glumpy - Small python library for rapid visualization of numpy arrays

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769487



--- Comment #12 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  ---
Thx for the reminder. I was very busy these time with a certain 3rd part
repository migration. But I should be more responsible now.

I will provide a formal review from the current state of the spec in a few.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1373782] Review Request: mingw-cmocka - MinGW Lightweight library to simplify and generalize unit tests for C

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373782



--- Comment #5 from Jakub Hrozek  ---
Thank you, there seems to be another issue fedora-review found:
  Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-
  root/mingw/lib/cmake/cmocka/cmocka-config-version.cmake

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

[Bug 1290342] Review Request: ecc-25519-java - Java library to use Ed25519 and Curve25518

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290342

Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||kwiz...@gmail.com
 Depends On||182235 (FE-Legal)
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|kwiz...@gmail.com



--- Comment #4 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  ---
I'm taking the review.
But first I wonder why this isn't part of the standard openjdk distribution.
Is there any issue with this implementation of the ECC algo ?

Blocking FE-Legal about this.


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 769487] Review Request: python-glumpy - Small python library for rapid visualization of numpy arrays

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769487

Charalampos Stratakis  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(kwiz...@gmail.com
   ||)



--- Comment #11 from Charalampos Stratakis  ---
Current version is 1.0.6 now and project is hosted on [0] and pypi[1]

Nicholas is it possible to continue with the review or should someone else take
it?

[0]https://github.com/glumpy/glumpy
[1]https://pypi.python.org/pypi/glumpy

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1223455] Review Request: mysql-connector-net - Mono ADO.NET driver for MySQL

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223455
Bug 1223455 depends on bug 1221559, which changed state.

Bug 1221559 Summary: Mono 4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221559

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1223442] Review Request: npgsql - A .Net Data Provider for PostgreSQL

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223442
Bug 1223442 depends on bug 1221559, which changed state.

Bug 1221559 Summary: Mono 4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221559

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1244899] Review Request: monodevelop-database - Database Add-in for MonoDevelop

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1244899
Bug 1244899 depends on bug 1221559, which changed state.

Bug 1221559 Summary: Mono 4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221559

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1159091] Review Request: openra - Libre/ Free Real Time Strategy project [+Tracker to unbundle all dependencies]

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1159091
Bug 1159091 depends on bug 1221559, which changed state.

Bug 1221559 Summary: Mono 4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221559

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1166916] Review Request: fuzzynet - Fuzzy Logic Library for Mono

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166916
Bug 1166916 depends on bug 1221559, which changed state.

Bug 1221559 Summary: Mono 4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221559

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1222662] Review Request: notify-sharp3 - C# Desktop Notification with gtk3

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222662
Bug 1222662 depends on bug 1221559, which changed state.

Bug 1221559 Summary: Mono 4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221559

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1166897] Review Request: mono-nat - Mono library for automatic port forwarding ( new github project name: Mono.NAT)

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166897
Bug 1166897 depends on bug 1221559, which changed state.

Bug 1221559 Summary: Mono 4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221559

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1375670] Review Request: python26 - Version 2.6 of the Python programming language

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1375670

Charalampos Stratakis  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #7 from Charalampos Stratakis  ---
BuildRequires: python2 is added because of that [error] during build on Fedora
23 and Fedora 24

[error]
./Parser/asdl_c.py -h ./Include ./Parser/Python.asdl
/usr/bin/env: 'python': No such file or directory
Makefile:558: recipe for target 'Include/Python-ast.h' failed
make: *** [Include/Python-ast.h] Error 127

It seems to be fixable as it is mentioned here [0], but it's not a blocker for
accepting the package. 

[0] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-December/106425.html

Package accepted.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1373218] Review Request: zstd - Zstd compression library

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373218



--- Comment #8 from Pádraig Brady  ---
Spec URL: https://pbrady.fedorapeople.org/zstd.spec
SRPM URL: https://pbrady.fedorapeople.org/zstd-1.1.0-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description: Zstd, is a fast lossless compression algorithm,
targeting real-time compression scenarios at zlib-level compression ratio.
A zstd command line utility and libzstd are provided.
Fedora Account System Username: pbrady

- Main license changed to "BSD and MIT", examples no longer included
- static lib removed

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 1380313] New: Review Request: fprobe - Collect network traffic data and emit as NetFlow flows

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380313

Bug ID: 1380313
   Summary: Review Request: fprobe - Collect network traffic data
and emit as NetFlow flows
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ing...@linpro.no
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://ingvar.fedorapeople.org/fprobe/fprobe.spec
SRPM URL: https://ingvar.fedorapeople.org/fprobe/fprobe-1.1-1.fc24.src.rpm

Description:
fprobe is a libpcap-based tool that collect network traffic data and
emit it as NetFlow flows towards the specified collector.
For the similar libipulog-based fork of fprobe, see the package fprobe-ulog.

Fedora Account System Username: ingvar

I recently needed to use fprobe, and while fprobe-ulog exists, I'd like the
libpcap version available as well.

rpmlint issues predefended:

incorrect-fsf-address: https://sourceforge.net/p/fprobe/bugs/6/
spelling-error: just false positives
using %buildroot: Needed for EPEL5
not using %make_install: Needed for EPEL5

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1364093] Review Request: libdnf - Library providing simplified C and Python API to libsolv

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1364093

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-09-29 05:25:24



--- Comment #7 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
Built in rawhide.

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

[Bug 1379709] Review Request: python-epi - Tool for looking at the entry point plugins on a system

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379709

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Looks good,
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 1373782] Review Request: mingw-cmocka - MinGW Lightweight library to simplify and generalize unit tests for C

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373782



--- Comment #4 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos  ---
(In reply to Jakub Hrozek from comment #3)
> (In reply to Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos from comment #2)
> > Not sure what you mean about (5).
> 
> Sorry, yes, that was unclear :)
> 
> In Fedora, we have a separate library that contains the statically-built
> libcmocka version:

I did not need the static libraries, that's why I didn't add them. I've updated
the spec to generate them.

> I was wondering if the mingw packaging should do the same, because the
> fedora-review tool was complaining about a static library in a package that
> doesn't end with -static. But I don't know what is the right mingw
> packaging..

Note that .dll.a is used for linking and is not a static library (I didn't see
the fedora review message, but I guess it is referring on them).

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

[Bug 1373782] Review Request: mingw-cmocka - MinGW Lightweight library to simplify and generalize unit tests for C

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373782



--- Comment #3 from Jakub Hrozek  ---
(In reply to Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos from comment #2)
> Not sure what you mean about (5).

Sorry, yes, that was unclear :)

In Fedora, we have a separate library that contains the statically-built
libcmocka version:

$ dnf info libcmocka-static
Warning: failed loading '/etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-spotify.repo', skipping.
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'mkosek-freeipa-master', disabling.
Last metadata expiration check: 23:18:00 ago on Wed Sep 28 11:17:58 2016.
Available Packages
Name: libcmocka-static
Arch: i686
Epoch   : 0
Version : 1.0.1
Release : 3.fc24
Size: 25 k
Repo: fedora
Summary : Lightweight library to simplify and generalize unit tests for C
URL : http://cmocka.org
License : ASL 2.0
Description : Static version of the cmocka library.

I was wondering if the mingw packaging should do the same, because the
fedora-review tool was complaining about a static library in a package that
doesn't end with -static. But I don't know what is the right mingw packaging..

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1373782] Review Request: mingw-cmocka - MinGW Lightweight library to simplify and generalize unit tests for C

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373782



--- Comment #2 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos  ---
Updated to handle 1,6:

Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/mingw-cmocka.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/mingw-cmocka-1.1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm

For (2), email was sent [0]. For (4), I used mingw-libidn, mingw-gnutls as
basis, since I also didn't have much mingw experience. It seems that the mingw-
packages are devel packages intended to be used for developing for windows in
fedora (as opposed to only running apps). That seems to be an unwritten rule,
as I also couldn't find any info about it. Not sure what you mean about (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 769487] Review Request: python-glumpy - Small python library for rapid visualization of numpy arrays

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769487

Thibault North  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(thibault.north@gm |
   |ail.com)|



--- Comment #10 from Thibault North  ---
Nope, haven't had time to look into it yet. Any help appreciated!

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

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #37 from yunying@intel.com ---
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #35)
> (In reply to yunying.sun from comment #31)
> > (In reply to lo1 from comment #30)
> All BuildRequires must be specified. Even gcc/gcc-c++.

gcc package description says "gcc.x86_64 : Various compilers (C, C++,
Objective-C, Java, ...)", does that mean gcc compile also works for c++ source
files, so gcc-c++ is not necessarily needed?

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

[Bug 1369708] Review Request: tpm2-tss - TPM2.0 Software Stack

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #36 from yunying@intel.com ---
(In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #35)
> (In reply to yunying.sun from comment #31)
> > (In reply to lo1 from comment #30)
> All BuildRequires must be specified. Even gcc/gcc-c++.

@Igor, there're cpp source files in this package. I've added "BuildRequires:
gcc", and there're no compile errors in koji & Copr build. Do I have to add
"BuildRequires: gcc-c++" in this case?

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

2016-09-29 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #35 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
(In reply to yunying.sun from comment #31)
> (In reply to lo1 from comment #30)
> > Changelog needs to be updated every time you make changes:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/
> > Guidelines#Changelogs
> > 
> Thanks for the review Vicky. About change logs, on wiki it says "Every time
> you make changes, that is, whenever you increment the E-V-R of a package,
> add a changelog entry. ". My understanding is only when version and/or
> release is updated, changelog needed. 
> 
> In my case, the target version/release is the package's first release,
> 1.0-beta1, not changed. So I suppose it's better not to log every detailed
> changes which I made to fix issues found during review, otherwise the
> changelog would be long and full of minor details. Is it acceptable?
> 
> > 
> > 
> > The package failed to build on Fedora 24 (x86_64) as below:
> > 
> Your build failed due to not finding g++. But on koji build server and COPR,
> this package does compile successfully. I did local rpmbuild on my desktop
> with RHEL 7.3 Alpha(No Fedora 24 environment so far). Does Fedora 24 local
> build is mandatory for new package?
All BuildRequires must be specified. Even gcc/gcc-c++.

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

93 matches

Mail list logo