[Bug 1390063] Package Review: classloader-leak-test-framework - Detection and verification of Java ClassLoader leaks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1390063

Tomas Repik  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2016-11-10 01:51:19



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 738589] Review Request: perl-Socket-Netlink - Interface to Linux' s PF_NETLINK socket family

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738589

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Socket-Netlink-0.04-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-5300747e76

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 738931] Review Request: perl-Socket-Netlink-Route - Interface to Linux' s NETLINK_ROUTE netlink socket protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738931
Bug 738931 depends on bug 738589, which changed state.

Bug 738589 Summary: Review Request: perl-Socket-Netlink - Interface to Linux's 
PF_NETLINK socket family
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738589

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|RAWHIDE |---



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

[Bug 1336555] Review Request: python3-pytz - World Timezone Definitions for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336555



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-pytz-2016.7-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-f1ffcf0ecd

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1390063] Package Review: classloader-leak-test-framework - Detection and verification of Java ClassLoader leaks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1390063



--- Comment #10 from Pavel Raiskup  ---
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=815974

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1385441] Review Request: rpmdeplint - Tool to find errors in RPM packages in the context of their dependency graph

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385441



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
rpmdeplint-1.2-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #10 from Sachidananda Urs  ---
(In reply to Niels de Vos from comment #8)
> (In reply to Sachidananda Urs from comment #7)
> > I'll request to upload the srpm to a publicly accessible location.
> > The change I'm not confident in the spec file is the define:
> > 
> > %global _rpmfilename noarch/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}%{?dist}.rpm
> > 
> > I hope this is fine. I need it this way so that I can have a generic
> > tar.gz source file and build dist specific rpm from that.
> 
> I do not understand why this is needed. Could you explain your workflow that
> requires this? We may be able to suggest an alternative approach.

So when I build RPMs I would like to have
gdeploy--release-{fc24,el7,el6}.rpm ... 
And I would like to keep the tar ball gdeploy--release.tar.gz

I don't want to create a tag for every dist.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1392838] Review Request: python-mlpy - Python module for Machine Learning

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392838

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl



--- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Something strange is happening in %prep. Why don't you just use:
%autosetup -n %{srcname}-%{version}
?

Requires and other dependencies should be listed on-per-line (for diffability
and general legibility).

%description is way too terse: is it a set of functions or building blocks, or
does it provide ready tools, etc. Please extend it so that a person can get a
general idea without going on the web.
"Machine Learning Python" suggests that this is some variant of python, like
pypy.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1365319] Review Request: EPEL vcftools - newest version 0.1.14

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365319



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
vcftools-0.1.14-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-879804ba99

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

[Bug 1383781] Review Request: sunflow - A rendering system for photo-realistic image synthesis

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1383781

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
sunflow-0.07.3-8097f6d.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-e4985bc6c0

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1365319] Review Request: EPEL vcftools - newest version 0.1.14

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365319



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
vcftools-0.1.14-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d2bfa75d27

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

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

[bugzilla]

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

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|panem...@gmail.com  |ktdre...@ktdreyer.com
  Flags|fedora-review?  |



--- Comment #9 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
I was away for a week for some conference. Reading this review updates now. 

Ken, I see you also offered to sponsor Sachidananda and he has actually
responded to your comment and provided update for this package.

I think I will now prefer you to continue this package review and sponsorship
to Sachidananda.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1375744] Review Request: gasnet - A Portable High-Performance Communication Layer for GAS Languages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1375744

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
gasnet-1.28.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-b706f067d3

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1336555] Review Request: python3-pytz - World Timezone Definitions for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336555

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-pytz-2016.7-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-326692eac8

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1324636] Review Request: python3-dbus - D-Bus Python 3 Bindings

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324636

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
python3-dbus-1.2.4-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-3606e79612

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

[bugzilla]

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-11-09 22:28:53



--- Comment #57 from Fedora Update System  ---
petsc-3.7.4-12.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1383725] Review Request: python-restructuredtext-lint - reStructuredText linter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1383725

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-11-09 22:29:09



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-restructuredtext-lint-0.17.2-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24
stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.

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

[Bug 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154
Bug 505154 depends on bug 1350257, which changed state.

Bug 1350257 Summary: Review Request: petsc - Portable Extensible Toolkit for 
Scientific Computation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350257

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1393129] Review Request: aexpect - a python library to control interactive applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393129

Stephen Gallagher  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #3 from Stephen Gallagher  ---
(In reply to Merlin Mathesius from comment #2)
> Thank you for the detailed and helpful review comments.
> 
> The selected commit and version (1.2.0) were unofficial in upstream.
> However, an official tag for that commit was added just today
> (https://github.com/autotest/aexpect/issues/14).
> 
> I believe I addressed all of your other issues. I also attempted to include
> support for both Python 2 and Python 3. The tagged version 1.2.0 of aexpect
> does not support Python 3--although the current HEAD does. The upstream
> maintainers have suggested a version 1.3.0 will be coming soon. Thus, in the
> interim, I updated the package version to 1.2.1, set the source to use the
> current HEAD commit, and included a patch to update the version string
> embedded in setup.py.

You can't do this. It's not safe to name something 1.2.1 because upstream could
eventually opt to release a 1.2.1 that is entirely different from what you
called 1.2.1. Then users of this package will be confused. Please drop the
version hack.

If you want to release with the python 3 support, you need to follow the naming
guidelines at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Snapshot_packages

The result will end up looking like:

aexpect-1.2.0-1.20161109git%{shortcommit0}.fc26


> 
> New Spec URL: https://merlinm.fedorapeople.org/aexpect-1.2.1.spec
> New SRPM URL: https://merlinm.fedorapeople.org/aexpect-1.2.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
> New Koji scratch build URL:
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16378886


OK, a few more comments:
1) I should have thought of this earlier, but aexpect-helper is probably
important to operation. So we should ship a version of it in the python3
subpackage, renamed to python3-aexpect-helper (at least until the support
becomes stable). It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to rename the python2
version to python2-aexpect-helper and carry a symlink for the
/usr/bin/aexpect-helper name. This would be future-compatible whenever we
decided to swap over to python 3 as the preferred version.

If this is getting too complicated, feel free to skip Python 3 support entirely
for the first pass here. It can be a quagmire.

2) The master name of the package should be python-aexpect, not just aexpect.
The subpackages it produces are correct.

3) The order you run the %py2_install and %py3_install macros matters. Because
both builds provide /usr/bin/aexpect-helper, whichever one builds second will
overwrite the one that builds first. In this case, that means that you are
actually installing the Python 3 version of the binary into the python2-aexpect
subpackage. Oops! (If you follow my symlink suggestion in 1), you'll want to do
the rename between the %py2_install and %py3_install calls and create the
symlink last.)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1392606] Review Request: perl-Encode-IMAPUTF7 - Process the special UTF-7 variant required by IMAP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392606



--- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts  ---
Dang it, I swear one version of the package I made had perl-generators in
there.  Unfortunately I started with cpanspec, and it really needs to be fixed.
 I fixed a lot of its output but it would have been simpler to start from
scratch, I think.  In fact, I realize it's sufficiently useless that I went
ahead and remove mention of it from the Perl guidelines entirely.

Anyway, cpanspec seems to be poor enough now that I just removed reference to
it from the Perl guidelines.

I didn't even know about the NO_PACKLIST, and the deletion of empty directories
by default.  That's great.  I sure wish cpanspec knew about it, too.

Is %_fixperms still required?  And is it still required to call "make
pure_install"?  If "make install" worked we could just recommend %make_install.

Here are new files:
Updated spec:
https://www.math.uh.edu/~tibbs/review/perl-Encode-IMAPUTF7/perl-Encode-IMAPUTF7.spec
Updated SRPM:
https://www.math.uh.edu/~tibbs/review/perl-Encode-IMAPUTF7/perl-Encode-IMAPUTF7-1.05-2.fc25.src.rpm
(f25 this time so that perl-generators isn't there by default)

But, a note, from the person who wrote the packaging guidelines relating to
build dependencies:

I did not add the dependencies on coreutils and findutils.  If you're asking
others to add them, I would kindly ask that you please stop doing so as it only
causes confusion among the packagers.  The guidelines guarantee that RPM can
run basic shell scripts and actually build packages.  You get mv and find and
tar and sed and patch.  (I did add a dep on make, which elicits a complaint
from fedora-review.  Sometimes you just can't win.)

The intent was never to give anyone the impression that those were required.  I
went ahead and altered the Perl guidelines to use wording closer to that of the
main guidelines to try and minimize any confusion.  But if you have suggestions
for any other clarifications I might add (short of just including a complete
list, which is what we want to avoid) then please let me know.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1393021] Review Request: pulledpork - Pulled Pork for Snort and Suricata rule management

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393021



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
pulledpork-0.7.2-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-b12d1389ac

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1393021] Review Request: pulledpork - Pulled Pork for Snort and Suricata rule management

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393021

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1393021] Review Request: pulledpork - Pulled Pork for Snort and Suricata rule management

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393021



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
pulledpork-0.7.2-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-6e20685523

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1393129] Review Request: aexpect - a python library to control interactive applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393129

Merlin Mathesius  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 from Merlin Mathesius  ---
Thank you for the detailed and helpful review comments.

The selected commit and version (1.2.0) were unofficial in upstream. However,
an official tag for that commit was added just today
(https://github.com/autotest/aexpect/issues/14).

I believe I addressed all of your other issues. I also attempted to include
support for both Python 2 and Python 3. The tagged version 1.2.0 of aexpect
does not support Python 3--although the current HEAD does. The upstream
maintainers have suggested a version 1.3.0 will be coming soon. Thus, in the
interim, I updated the package version to 1.2.1, set the source to use the
current HEAD commit, and included a patch to update the version string embedded
in setup.py.

New Spec URL: https://merlinm.fedorapeople.org/aexpect-1.2.1.spec
New SRPM URL: https://merlinm.fedorapeople.org/aexpect-1.2.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
New Koji scratch build URL:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16378886

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1267340] Review Request: rubygem-minitest-around - Around block for minitest

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267340



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1187084] Review Request: electrum - a lightweight Bitcoin client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187084



--- Comment #18 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
Not sure how to package the locale files, now their are in:
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/electrum/locale, but I assume the best place
would be /usr/share/locale/.

This would require changes to Electrum:
Electrum-2.7.12/lib/i18n.py:
> import gettext, os
> 
> LOCALE_DIR = os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), 'locale')
> language = gettext.translation('electrum', LOCALE_DIR, fallback = True)

Do you think it is worth the effort to patch this file and install the
translations in /usr/share/locale/? Or should we work with upstream to have a
better solution?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1187084] Review Request: electrum - a lightweight Bitcoin client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187084

Jonny Heggheim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1187084] Review Request: electrum - a lightweight Bitcoin client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187084



--- Comment #17 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
New version based on the work of Samuel Gyger:

Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/electrum/electrum.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/electrum/electrum-2.7.12-1.fc25.src.rpm
Description: A lightweight bitcoin client that uses external servers to do the
heavy lifting of the bitcoin protocol.
Fedora Account System Username: jonny
Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16378467

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1187084] Review Request: electrum - a lightweight Bitcoin client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187084



--- Comment #16 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
(In reply to Samuel Gyger from comment #15)
> Feel free, you can take my work, Public Domain, no limits from me. Thanks
> for stepping up to the task.
> 
> Cheers

Great! Thanks for your work, my SPEC files are based on your contributions.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1267340] Review Request: rubygem-minitest-around - Around block for minitest

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1267340



--- Comment #7 from Ilya Gradina  ---
(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #6)
> (In reply to Ilya Gradina from comment #5)
> > - added run rdoc
> 
> Would you mind to elaborate the purpose of this?

Sorry,
I generated the documentation, which is not. Actually this is not the desired
action. 

new spec:
https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-minitest-around.spec
new srpm:
https://github.com/ilgrad/fedora-packages/raw/master/rubygems/rubygem-minitest-around-0.4.0-3.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 1393502] Review Request: python-future - Clean single-source support for Python 3 and 2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393502

Ralph Bean  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Last Closed||2016-11-09 15:39:31



--- Comment #2 from Ralph Bean  ---
Nevermind... this is already in Fedora: 
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/future

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1250884 ***

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1250884] Review Request: future - Easy, clean, reliable Python 2/ 3 compatibility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250884

Ralph Bean  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rb...@redhat.com



--- Comment #20 from Ralph Bean  ---
*** Bug 1393502 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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

[Bug 1187084] Review Request: electrum - a lightweight Bitcoin client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187084



--- Comment #15 from Samuel Gyger  ---
Feel free, you can take my work, Public Domain, no limits from me. Thanks for
stepping up to the task.

Cheers

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1393021] Review Request: pulledpork - Pulled Pork for Snort and Suricata rule management

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393021



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

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1393021] Review Request: pulledpork - Pulled Pork for Snort and Suricata rule management

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393021



--- Comment #7 from marcindulak  ---
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 1393021] Review Request: pulledpork - Pulled Pork for Snort and Suricata rule management

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393021

Jason Taylor  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 1393021] Review Request: pulledpork - Pulled Pork for Snort and Suricata rule management

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393021



--- Comment #6 from Jason Taylor  ---
looks good.

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[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

Perl:
[-]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
 Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`";
 echo $version)) missing?

= 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]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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 messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
---
Checking: pulledpork-0.7.2-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
  pulledpork-0.7.2-1.fc24.src.rpm
pulledpork.noarch: W: 

[Bug 1389016] Review Request: libxsmm - Library for small matrix-matrix multiplications on Intel x86_64 (e.g. for cp2k)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389016

Antonio Trande  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #27 from Antonio Trande  ---
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 1393502] Review Request: python-future - Clean single-source support for Python 3 and 2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393502



--- Comment #1 from Ralph Bean  ---
This package built on koji: 
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16374562

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1393502] New: Review Request: python-future - Clean single-source support for Python 3 and 2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393502

Bug ID: 1393502
   Summary: Review Request: python-future - Clean single-source
support for Python 3 and 2
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: rb...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org




Spec URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-future.spec
SRPM URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//python-future-0.15.2-1.fc25.src.rpm

Description:
``future`` is the missing compatibility layer between Python 2 and Python
3. It allows you to use a single, clean Python 3.x-compatible codebase to
support both Python 2 and Python 3 with minimal overhead.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1187084] Review Request: electrum - a lightweight Bitcoin client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187084

Jonny Heggheim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jonnyheggh...@sigaint.org



--- Comment #14 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
What is the status of this package? Do you mind I take over and become the
maintainer?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1389016] Review Request: libxsmm - Library for small matrix-matrix multiplications on Intel x86_64 (e.g. for cp2k)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389016



--- Comment #26 from Dave Love  ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #25)

> If you want provide those files under %doc, executable permissions must be
> removed.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation

That's not what it says, and the previous version doesn't install extra
dependencies, but I removed the shell dependencies from:

SRPM URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/libxsmm-1.5.2-2.el6.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://loveshack.fedorapeople.org/review/libxsmm.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 1157299] Review Request: "jonathan-jeremie" - Distributed Object Platform (DOP) written entirely in Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1157299

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |




Referenced Bugs:

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

[Bug 1370621] Review Request: python-django-ipware - Returns user' s real IP address in Django

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370621

Iryna Shcherbina  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ishch...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Iryna Shcherbina  ---
Hi Igor,

the spec file looks good, but please note that:

* recently a new version (1.1.6) was released
* with the new release the license was changed to MIT

It is an informal review, as I'm not sponsored yet, but I can continue with the
review when I am and when the updates are available.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1393021] Review Request: pulledpork - Pulled Pork for Snort and Suricata rule management

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393021



--- Comment #5 from marcindulak  ---
Spec URL:
http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/pulledpork/r03/pulledpork.spec
SRPM URL:
http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/pulledpork/r03/pulledpork-0.7.2-1.fc23.src.rpm

yes, should be fixed 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 1393129] Review Request: aexpect - a python library to control interactive applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393129

Stephen Gallagher  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mmath...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(mmathesi@redhat.c
   ||om)



--- Comment #1 from Stephen Gallagher  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
  Currently, the package has `BuildRequires: python`, but it should be one or
both of `BuildRequires: python2-devel` or `BuildRequires: python3-devel`

- If the package only supports Python 2, then it needs to indicate that in a
comment in the spec file. If it supports Python 3, then it must build the
Python 3 version as well and only the python3-aexpect package may ship
aexpect-helper

- Non-blocking, but instead of `%{python_sitelib}/aexpect*`, use
%{python_sitelib}/aexpect/
%{python_sitelib}/aexpect-%{version}-py%{python2_version}-.egg-info

This has the benefit of intentionally failing a build if an unexpected file
starting with "aexpect" turns up in that location. It's better to be explicit
about what ends up in the RPMs.

- The URL is wrong: it points to the Avocado documentation. It should probably
just be https://github.com/autotest/aexpect

- Drop the %defattr line from %files. It's not needed on Fedora or any
currently supported version of RHEL.

- Where does the version 1.2.0 come from? I don't see that in the tarball or
upstream anywhere.

- The commit doesn't match the latest HEAD or any tags. Why pick that one? It
needs to be in a comment.

- Upstream includes a script called `selftests/checkall`. Why isn't this run in
%check?. If it doesn't work or isn't meaningful, it should be added to the spec
but commented out with a note about why for future packagers.

- in %description, drop the "Aexpect is" lead-in. It doesn't need to duplicate
the name.

= 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)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 26
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/fedorareview/1393129-aexpect/licensecheck.txt
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
 Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[!]: 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 

[Bug 1393021] Review Request: pulledpork - Pulled Pork for Snort and Suricata rule management

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393021



--- Comment #4 from Jason Taylor  ---
#4 doesn't appear to be fixed. I show the files under /usr/share/pulledpork
directory is still unowned.

rpm -ql pulledpork shows:

/etc/pulledpork
/etc/pulledpork/disablesid.conf
/etc/pulledpork/dropsid.conf
/etc/pulledpork/enablesid.conf
/etc/pulledpork/modifysid.conf
/etc/pulledpork/pulledpork.conf
/usr/bin/pulledpork
/usr/share/doc/pulledpork
/usr/share/doc/pulledpork/README.CATEGORIES
/usr/share/doc/pulledpork/README.CHANGES
/usr/share/doc/pulledpork/README.RULESET
/usr/share/doc/pulledpork/README.SHAREDOBJECTS
/usr/share/doc/pulledpork/README.md
/usr/share/licenses/pulledpork
/usr/share/licenses/pulledpork/LICENSE
/usr/share/pulledpork/contrib
/usr/share/pulledpork/contrib/README.CONTRIB
/usr/share/pulledpork/contrib/oink-conv.pl

the files are owned but the directory itself is not declared.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1393002] Review Request: perl-HTML-HTML5-Writer - Output a DOM as HTML5

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393002

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-HTML-HTML5-Writer-0.20
   ||1-1.fc26
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-11-09 09:22:53



--- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar  ---
Thank you for the review and the repository.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1393002] Review Request: perl-HTML-HTML5-Writer - Output a DOM as HTML5

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393002



--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-HTML-HTML5-Writer

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 738589] Review Request: perl-Socket-Netlink - Interface to Linux' s PF_NETLINK socket family

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738589



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Socket-Netlink-0.04-3.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL
6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-5300747e76

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1392457] Re-review Request for renaming python package to python2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392457

Miro Hrončok  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Posting raw links for Fedora Review to work.

Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fedora-python/python2-spec/py2rename/python.spec
SRPM URL: https://cstratak.fedorapeople.org/python2-2.7.12-9.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 1389695] Review Request: python-wcsaxes - A Python framework for plotting astronomical and geospatial data

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389695



--- Comment #2 from Sergio Pascual  ---
Thanks for the review Iryna, wcsaxes.test() definitively doesn't work with this
spec file

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

[Bug 1393002] Review Request: perl-HTML-HTML5-Writer - Output a DOM as HTML5

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393002

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova  ---
Source file is ok
Summary is ok
License is ok
Description is ok
URL and Source0 are ok
All tests passed
BuildRequires are ok

$ rpm -qp --requires perl-HTML-HTML5-Writer-0.201-1.fc26.noarch.rpm | sort |
uniq -c
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.0)
  1 perl(:VERSION) >= 5.10.0
  1 perl(Exporter)
  1 perl(HTML::HTML5::Entities) >= 0.001
  1 perl(XML::LibXML) >= 1.60
  1 perl(base)
  1 perl(constant)
  1 perl(strict)
  1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
Binary requires are Ok.

$ rpm -qp --provides perl-HTML-HTML5-Writer-0.201-1.fc26.noarch.rpm | sort |
uniq -c
  1 perl(HTML::HTML5::Writer) = 0.201
  1 perl-HTML-HTML5-Writer = 0.201-1.fc26
Binary provides are Ok.

$ rpmlint ./perl-HTML-HTML5-Writer*
perl-HTML-HTML5-Writer.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US LibXML
-> Lib XML, Lib-XML, Librium
perl-HTML-HTML5-Writer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US LibXML ->
Lib XML, Lib-XML, Librium
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Rpmlint is ok

The package 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 1393002] Review Request: perl-HTML-HTML5-Writer - Output a DOM as HTML5

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393002

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1393281] New: Review Request: python-PasteDeploy - Load, configure, and compose WSGI applications and servers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393281

Bug ID: 1393281
   Summary: Review Request: python-PasteDeploy - Load, configure,
and compose WSGI applications and servers
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: mru...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-PasteDeploy.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-WSME-0.8.0-1.fc25.src.rpm
Description: This tool provides code to load WSGI applications and servers from
URIs;
these URIs can refer to Python Eggs for INIstyle configuration files.
Paste Script provides commands to serve applications based on this
configuration file. The latest version is available in a Mercurial
repository (or a tarball). 
Fedora Account System Username: mrunge

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1393271] New: Review-request: python-WSME - Simplify the writing of REST APIs, and extend them with additional protocols

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393271

Bug ID: 1393271
   Summary: Review-request: python-WSME - Simplify the writing of
REST APIs, and extend them with additional protocols
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: mru...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-WSME.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.matthias-runge.de/fedora/python-WSME-0.8.0-1.fc25.src.rpm
Description: 
Web Services Made Easy Introduction Web Services Made Easy (WSME) simplifies
the writing of REST web services by providing simple yet powerful typing,
removing the need to directly manipulate the request and the response
objects.WSME can work standalone or on top of your favorite Python web
(micro)framework, so you can use both your preferred way of routing your REST
requests and most of the ...

Fedora Account System Username: mrunge

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #8 from Niels de Vos  ---
(In reply to Sachidananda Urs from comment #7)
> I'll request to upload the srpm to a publicly accessible location.
> The change I'm not confident in the spec file is the define:
> 
> %global _rpmfilename noarch/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}%{?dist}.rpm
> 
> I hope this is fine. I need it this way so that I can have a generic
> tar.gz source file and build dist specific rpm from that.

I do not understand why this is needed. Could you explain your workflow that
requires this? We may be able to suggest an alternative approach.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1388945] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-media-player-indicator - Control MPRIS2 capable media players : Rhythmbox, Banshee, Clementine and more

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1388945



--- Comment #1 from MartinKG  ---
Spec URL:
https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/gnome-shell-extension-media-player-indicator.spec
SRPM URL:
https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/gnome-shell-extension-media-player-indicator-0.1-0.2.20161103gitb20fa7f.fc25.src.rpm

%changelog
* Wed Nov 09 2016 Martin Gansser  -
0.1-0.2.20161103gitb20fa7f
- Update to new git snapshot 0.1-0.2.20161103gitb20fa7f

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