[Bug 1427085] Review Request: plantumlqeditor - Simple editor for PlantUML

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427085



--- Comment #11 from Raphael Groner  ---
(In reply to Damian Wrobel from comment #10)
> (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #9)
> > Thanks for your fixes, but there is still a need of some important comments 
> > …
> > 
> > >> MUST fix:
> > >> - update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package
> > > removed
> > It's not fixed, please try again.
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database
> It's removed and I don't see it in the spec file. The following command
> proves it:
> $ curl -s
> https://dwrobel.fedorapeople.org/projects/rpmbuild/SPECS/plantumlqeditor.
> spec | grep update-desktop-database | wc -l
> 0

In my opinion, we have to ship the calls to update-desktop-database. Is there
some misunderstanding of the guidelines?

> > >> - Remove duplication of folders ownership, see note below.
> > > removed, except %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps for which I 
> > > applied:
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_package_you_depend_on_to_provide_a_directory_may_choose_to_own_a_different_directory_in_a_later_version_and_your_package_will_run_unmodified_with_that_later_version
> > Nearly right. Though, you have to remove ownership of 
> > %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor and all subdirectories because it's obviousl owned
> > by hicolor-icon-theme and 'Requires: hicolor-icon-theme' is sufficient.
> 
> I'll remove it. Although, it not clear to me where it's guaranteed that
> hicolor-icon-theme will not change directory structure in the future.

Let's assume the unobvious option hicolor-icon-theme gets reworked that
heavily. Then we'll get a lot of issues with all those packages providing own
icons. It's the common way to just R: hicolor-icon-theme .

> > > [?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> > You should run the tests provided by upstream in %check.
> > https://github.com/borco/plantumlqeditor/tree/master/tests
> As I mentioned, I didn't touch it because upstream does not even provide a
> method to compile it with a qmake.

Please ask upstream how to run the tests.

> Could you please confirm there is no issue with update-desktop-database
> before I will modify the spec.

Confirmed.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 821406] Review Request: eiskaltdcpp - QT Direct Connect client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821406



--- Comment #49 from Raphael Groner  ---
As my box got b0rken, I can't continue with this review in the next 1-2 weeks.

-- 
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 1450477] Review Request: ratbagd - the libratbag daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450477

Peter Hutterer  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #4 from Peter Hutterer  ---
merci, looks like there's still a few things left to do tough

* libratbag dependency upstream is >= 0.6, spec file is still at 0.4

* rpmlint complains: "ratbagd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
nonprivileged -> non privileged, non-privileged, underprivileged
ratbagd.src:23: W: unversioned-explicit-provides python3-ratbagd"
→ please hyphenate non-privileged

* ratbagd-python.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/ratbagctl
/usr/bin/env python
→ that's an upstream bug, should be '/usr/bin/env python3', see
https://github.com/libratbag/ratbagd/pull/26

* the man page for ratbagctl should be in the -python subpackage

* From  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python:
"Must: If you build for a single python runtime you must add %python_provide
python-$module so that the current default python is provided from the
unversioned python package."
afaict all other conditions are met here.

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

[Bug 1457451] Review Request: R-SummarizedExperiment - SummarizedExperiment container

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1457451

Mattias Ellert  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||mattias.ell...@physics.uu.s
   ||e
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mattias.ell...@physics.uu.s
   ||e
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Mattias Ellert  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===

The package build log has some warnings related to documentation
generation durung the build:

Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/Assays-class.Rd:117:
missing file link 'SimpleList'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/RangedSummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:116:
missing file link 'DataFrame'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/RangedSummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:119:
missing file link 'DataFrame'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/RangedSummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:122:
missing file link 'GRanges'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/RangedSummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:123:
missing file link 'GRangesList'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/RangedSummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:126:
missing file link 'GRanges'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/RangedSummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:126:
missing file link 'GRangesList'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/RangedSummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:151:
missing file link 'GRanges'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/RangedSummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:152:
missing file link 'GRangesList'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/RangedSummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:216:
missing file link 'shift'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/RangedSummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:217:
missing file link 'isDisjoint'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/RangedSummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:218:
missing file link 'coverage'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/RangedSummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:219:
missing file link 'findOverlaps'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/RangedSummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:220:
missing file link 'nearest'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/RangedSummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:264:
missing file link 'shift'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/RangedSummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:265:
missing file link 'isDisjoint'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/RangedSummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:266:
missing file link 'coverage'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/RangedSummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:267:
missing file link 'findOverlaps'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/RangedSummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:268:
missing file link 'nearest'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/RangedSummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:271:
missing file link 'GRanges'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/SummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:133:
missing file link 'mcols'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/SummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:206:
missing file link 'mcols'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/SummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:393:
missing file link 'DataFrame'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/SummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:393:
missing file link 'SimpleList'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/SummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:394:
missing file link 'Annotated'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/SummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:396:
missing file link 'metadata'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/SummarizedExperiment/SummarizedExperiment/man/SummarizedExperiment-class.Rd:397:
missing file link 'mcols'
Rd warning:

[Bug 1457449] Review Request: R-DelayedArray - Delayed operations on array-like objects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1457449

Mattias Ellert  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||mattias.ell...@physics.uu.s
   ||e
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mattias.ell...@physics.uu.s
   ||e
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Mattias Ellert  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===

The items marked [!] below all follow from that upstream has released
a newer version since the package was prepared:

[!]: Latest version is packaged.
 Note: Latest upstream version is 0.2.7, packaged version is 0.2.4

The source tarball for the packaged version is no longer available
from the URL given in the specfile. Upstream seems to have removed the
old source from the server when the new version was released, or maybe
moved it to a new location. So the source download check fails and the
comparison of the packaged source with the upstream source can not be
perfomed.

The package build log has some warnings related to documentation
generation durung the build:

Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/DelayedArray/DelayedArray/man/DelayedArray-class.Rd:175:
missing file link 'cbind'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/DelayedArray/DelayedArray/man/DelayedArray-utils.Rd:95:
missing file link 'Ops'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/DelayedArray/DelayedArray/man/DelayedArray-utils.Rd:96:
missing file link 'Math'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/DelayedArray/DelayedArray/man/DelayedArray-utils.Rd:96:
missing file link 'Math2'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/DelayedArray/DelayedArray/man/DelayedArray-utils.Rd:102:
missing file link 'cbind'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/DelayedArray/DelayedArray/man/DelayedArray-utils.Rd:108:
missing file link 'Summary'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/DelayedArray/DelayedArray/man/DelayedArray-utils.Rd:122:
missing file link 'is.na'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/DelayedArray/DelayedArray/man/DelayedArray-utils.Rd:122:
missing file link '!'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/DelayedArray/DelayedArray/man/DelayedArray-utils.Rd:124:
missing file link '%*%'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/DelayedArray/DelayedArray/man/DelayedArray-utils.Rd:127:
missing file link 'rowSums'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/DelayedArray/DelayedArray/man/DelayedArray-utils.Rd:128:
missing file link 'rowMaxs'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/DelayedArray/DelayedArray/man/DelayedArray-utils.Rd:144:
missing file link 'Ops'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/DelayedArray/DelayedArray/man/DelayedArray-utils.Rd:145:
missing file link 'Math'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/DelayedArray/DelayedArray/man/DelayedArray-utils.Rd:145:
missing file link 'Math2'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/DelayedArray/DelayedArray/man/RleArray-class.Rd:50:
missing file link 'Rle'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/DelayedArray/DelayedArray/man/RleArray-class.Rd:70:
missing file link 'Rle'
Rd warning:
/builddir/build/BUILD/DelayedArray/DelayedArray/man/cbind-methods.Rd:43:
missing file link 'acbind'

Not critical, but if it can be fixed...

There is no need to run one more iteration of the review only for
updating to the latest version. This can be done before importing the
package in Fedora. The package is therefore...

APPROVED.


= 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.
 DESCRIPTION file states "License: Artistic-2.0".
 No other licensing information found in the sources.
[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.
 No license file present in the sources.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Specfile states: "License: Artistic 2.0".
[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, 

[Bug 1458394] Re-Review Request: nuvolaruntime - Tight integration of web apps with your desktop, renaming nuvolaplayer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458394



--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/nuvolaruntime

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #20 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  ---
So, based on your feedback, here's the version 2:

https://dkaspar.fedorapeople.org/share/reviews/urw-base35-fonts/v2/

I suggest you use diff to see the changes there made. ;)

* I have addressed some of the issues found by rpmlint.

* I have added the creation of fonts.scale & fonts.dir files (in %post
sections), so the fonts can be correctly displayed by xorg-x11.
* I have also added updating of fontconfig cache (in %post and %postun).

 ^^^ These 2 changes are to make the urw-fonts backward compatible, because the
old 'urw-fonts' package was creating/providing these files, and I don't want to
break any GUI applications. :)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1421245] Review Request: libcrush - C library to control placement in a hierarchy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421245



--- Comment #27 from Loic Dachary  ---
@Haïkel do you think you'll get time to provide a feedback on this package ?
I'm eager to get it moving ;-)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1433749] Review Request: vrms-rpm - report of installed nonfree software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433749



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
vrms-rpm-1.2-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-bbbae25d00

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1433749] Review Request: vrms-rpm - report of installed nonfree software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433749



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
vrms-rpm-1.2-2.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-98ccd46108

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1433749] Review Request: vrms-rpm - report of installed nonfree software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433749

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |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 1448605] Review Request: nodejs-get-port - Get an available port

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448605

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-06-06 15:31:49



--- Comment #3 from Jared Smith  ---
In rawhide, closing 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 1442497] Review Request: nodejs-is-plain-object - Returns true if an object was created by the constructor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1442497

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-06-06 15:28:15



--- Comment #3 from Jared Smith  ---
In rawhide, closing 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 1442505] Review Request: nodejs-set-value - Create nested values and any intermediaries using dot notation (a.b.c) paths

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1442505
Bug 1442505 depends on bug 1442497, which changed state.

Bug 1442497 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-is-plain-object - Returns true if 
an object was created by the  constructor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1442497

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 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 1443788] Review Request: nodejs-execa - A better child_process

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443788
Bug 1443788 depends on bug 1443776, which changed state.

Bug 1443776 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-p-finally - Promise#finally() 
ponyfill - Invoked when the promise is settled
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443776

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 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 1443776] Review Request: nodejs-p-finally - Promise#finally() ponyfill - Invoked when the promise is settled

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443776

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-06-06 15:27:32



--- Comment #3 from Jared Smith  ---
In rawhide, closing 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 1433749] Review Request: vrms-rpm - report of installed nonfree software

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433749

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
vrms-rpm-1.2-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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-2017-78b01e2393

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1458355] Review Request: fedora-modular-repos - Fedora Modular package repositories

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458355

Troy Dawson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2017-06-06 14:30:41



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

[Bug 1457929] Review Request: proxysql, a high-performance MySQL proxy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1457929



--- Comment #8 from Honza Horak  ---
I've accidentally came across
https://github.com/percona/proxysql-packaging/blob/master/rpm/proxysql.spec --
so just sharing FYI..

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1427085] Review Request: plantumlqeditor - Simple editor for PlantUML

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427085



--- Comment #10 from Damian Wrobel  ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #9)
> Thanks for your fixes, but there is still a need of some important comments …
> 
> >> MUST fix:
> >> - update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package
> > removed
> It's not fixed, please try again.
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database
It's removed and I don't see it in the spec file. The following command proves
it:
$ curl -s
https://dwrobel.fedorapeople.org/projects/rpmbuild/SPECS/plantumlqeditor.spec |
grep update-desktop-database | wc -l
0

> 
> >> - Remove duplication of folders ownership, see note below.
> > removed, except %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps for which I applied:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#The_package_you_depend_on_to_provide_a_directory_may_choose_to_own_a_different_directory_in_a_later_version_and_your_package_will_run_unmodified_with_that_later_version
> Nearly right. Though, you have to remove ownership of 
> %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor and all subdirectories because it's obviousl owned
> by hicolor-icon-theme and 'Requires: hicolor-icon-theme' is sufficient.

I'll remove it. Although, it not clear to me where it's guaranteed that
hicolor-icon-theme will not change directory structure in the future.

> > [?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> You should run the tests provided by upstream in %check.
> https://github.com/borco/plantumlqeditor/tree/master/tests
As I mentioned, I didn't touch it because upstream does not even provide a
method to compile it with a qmake.


Could you please confirm there is no issue with update-desktop-database before
I will modify the 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 1427182] Review Request: libzypp - A package management library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427182
Bug 1427182 depends on bug 1427171, which changed state.

Bug 1427171 Summary: Re-enable AppData support in libsolv
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427171

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 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 1452644] Review Request: python-mmtf - A decoding library for the macromolecular transmission format (MMTF)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452644

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1452644] Review Request: python-mmtf - A decoding library for the macromolecular transmission format (MMTF)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452644



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-mmtf-1.0.6-2.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-7a5219cbc6

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1458441] Review Request: python-scrypt - Bindings for the scrypt key derivation function library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458441



--- Comment #2 from Alfredo Moralejo  ---
%{description} macro is not properly expanded in subpackages:

$ rpm -qip python2-scrypt-0.8.0-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
Name: python2-scrypt
Version : 0.8.0
Release : 1.fc27
Architecture: x86_64
Install Date: (not installed)
Group   : Unspecified
Size: 62205
License : BSD
Signature   : (none)
Source RPM  : python-scrypt-0.8.0-1.fc27.src.rpm
Build Date  : Tue 06 Jun 2017 04:59:47 PM CEST
Build Host  : faemino
Relocations : (not relocatable)
URL : http://bitbucket.org/mhallin/py-scrypt
Summary : Bindings for the scrypt key derivation function library
Description :
%{description}

Could you fix that, please?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1458441] Review Request: python-scrypt - Bindings for the scrypt key derivation function library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458441

Alfredo Moralejo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: |Review Request:
   |python-script - Bindings|python-scrypt - Bindings
   |for the scrypt key  |for the scrypt key
   |derivation function library |derivation function library



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1458243] Review Request: abrt-addon-python3 - catching and analyzing Python 3 exceptions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458243



--- Comment #2 from Miroslav Suchý  ---

%pre

%post

%preun
%systemd_preun abrtd.service

%postun
%systemd_postun_with_restart abrtd.service

%posttrans
service abrtd condrestart >/dev/null 2>&1 || :

This is not needed as you do not ship abrtd.service at all.


This is not needed:
  rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
both in %install and %clean sections

I am not sure if it make sense to run whole abrt test suite when you ship only
python3 bindings.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1459218] New: Review Request: perl-Dist-Zilla-Plugin-VersionFromMainModule - Set the distribution version from your main module 's version

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1459218

Bug ID: 1459218
   Summary: Review Request:
perl-Dist-Zilla-Plugin-VersionFromMainModule - Set the
distribution version from your main module's version
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Dist-Zilla-Plugin-VersionFromMainModule/perl-Dist-Zilla-Plugin-VersionFromMainModule.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Dist-Zilla-Plugin-VersionFromMainModule/perl-Dist-Zilla-Plugin-VersionFromMainModule-0.02-1.fc27.src.rpm
Description:
This Dist::Zilla plugin sets the distribution version from the $VERSION
variable found in the distribution's main module.

Fedora Account System Username: ppisar

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1459218] Review Request: perl-Dist-Zilla-Plugin-VersionFromMainModule - Set the distribution version from your main module 's version

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1459218

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1459138




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1459138
[Bug 1459138] perl-Dist-Milla-v1.0.18 is 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 1458441] Review Request: python-script - Bindings for the scrypt key derivation function library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458441



--- Comment #1 from Alfredo Moralejo  ---
Some comments:

- About adding unit tests in %check, unit tests are broken in tarball from pipy
as described in
https://bitbucket.org/mhallin/py-scrypt/issues/21/test-breaks-importerror-no-module-named

- This package is bundling scrypt release 1.2.0 from
https://github.com/Tarsnap/scrypt. As scrypt does not exist in fedora, i
understand this is ok and we can go on without using the "Provides:
bundled(scrypt)" as shown in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries?rd=Packaging:Bundled_Libraries

- Package doesn't have a LICENSE file upstream. It'd be nice if it would have
one, but license seems correctly set in setup.py

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1450477] Review Request: ratbagd - the libratbag daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450477

Benjamin Tissoires  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #3 from Benjamin Tissoires  ---
Spec URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~tissoire/ratbagd-rpm-v2/ratbagd.spec
SRPM URL:
https://people.freedesktop.org/~tissoire/ratbagd-rpm-v2/ratbagd-0.4-1.fc27.src.rpm

scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19884525

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1458243] Review Request: abrt-addon-python3 - catching and analyzing Python 3 exceptions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458243

Miroslav Suchý  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||msu...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Miroslav Suchý  ---
Note: This is targeting just EPEL-7 branch.

I'm taking 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 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #19 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
I meant 'I use -i option for...'

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #18 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
(In reply to David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] from comment #17)
> (In reply to Zdenek Dohnal from comment #3)
> > urw-base35-fonts.src: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout 10
> > seconds)
> 
> Works for me: https://www.urwpp.de/en/

It's just info message - no worries about that. I use that for creating
understandable outputs, but this specific info message seems to be more
confusing than explaining.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #17 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]  ---
(In reply to Zdenek Dohnal from comment #3)
> Now I'll post outputs of rpmlint of source rpm and binary rpms:
> 
> $ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.src.rpm 
> urw-base35-fonts.src: I: checking
> urw-base35-fonts.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) distributable ->
> distributed, distributive, attributable
> The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/distributable
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/distributable

> urw-base35-fonts.src: E: description-line-too-long C This meta-package will
> install all the 35 fonts from the urw-base35-fonts sub-packages.
> Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
> this number, cut it to fit in two lines.

Fixed.

> urw-base35-fonts.src: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout 10
> seconds)

Works for me: https://www.urwpp.de/en/

> urw-base35-fonts.src: W: no-%build-section
> The spec file does not contain a %build section.  Even if some packages don't
> directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's configuration to
> provide additional "under the hood" functionality, such as injection of
> automatic -debuginfo subpackages.  Add the section, even if empty.

We are not building the fonts from sources, and we certainly do not need
debuginfo packages for fonts.

> urw-base35-fonts.src: I: checking-url
> http://downloads.ghostscript.com/public/fonts/urw-base35-20160926.zip
> (timeout 10 seconds)
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

===

(In reply to Zdenek Dohnal from comment #4)
> $ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-c059-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
> urw-base35-c059-fonts.noarch: I: checking
> urw-base35-c059-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/
> (timeout 10 seconds)
> urw-base35-c059-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
> The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
> documentation files.

The documentation is not mandatory, and upstream does not provide any, because
again - there are just fonts. I will add the documentation if upstream creates
one in the future.

> 
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

This applies to other font subpackages as well.

===

(In reply to Zdenek Dohnal from comment #6)
> urw-base35-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided urw-fonts
> If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package
> should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency
> breakage.
> If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one,
> leave out the Provides.

Here is the package being obsoleted:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=856388

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #16 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-z003-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-z003-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-z003-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout
10 seconds)
urw-base35-z003-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

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

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #15 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-urw-gothic-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-urw-gothic-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-urw-gothic-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This package
contains URW Gothic font family, which are part of Level 2 Core Font Set.
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.

urw-base35-urw-gothic-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/
(timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-urw-gothic-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided urw-fonts
If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package
should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency breakage.
If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one,
leave out the Provides.

urw-base35-urw-gothic-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

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

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #14 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-urw-bookman-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-urw-bookman-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-urw-bookman-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This
package contains URW Bookman font family, which are part of Level 2 Core Font
Set.
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.

urw-base35-urw-bookman-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/
(timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-urw-bookman-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided urw-fonts
If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package
should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency breakage.
If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one,
leave out the Provides.

urw-base35-urw-bookman-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

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

[Bug 1458247] Review Request: translate-shell - a command-line online translator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458247

Vasiliy Glazov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2017-06-06 08:29:02



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #13 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-standard-symbols-ps-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-standard-symbols-ps-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-standard-symbols-ps-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C
This package contains Standard Symbols PS font family, which are part of Level
2 Core Font Set.
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.

urw-base35-standard-symbols-ps-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url
https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-standard-symbols-ps-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided urw-fonts
If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package
should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency breakage.
If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one,
leave out the Provides.

urw-base35-standard-symbols-ps-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

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

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #12 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-p052-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-p052-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-p052-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout
10 seconds)
urw-base35-p052-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

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

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #11 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-nimbus-sans-narrow-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-narrow-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-narrow-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This
package contains Nimbus Sans Narrow font family, which are part of Level 2 Core
Font Set.
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.

urw-base35-nimbus-sans-narrow-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url
https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-narrow-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.

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

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #10 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This
package contains Nimbus Sans font family, which are part of Level 2 Core Font
Set.
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.

urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/
(timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided urw-fonts
If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package
should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency breakage.
If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one,
leave out the Provides.

urw-base35-nimbus-sans-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

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

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #9 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This
package contains Nimbus Roman font family, which are part of Level 2 Core Font
Set.
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.

urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/
(timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided urw-fonts
If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package
should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency breakage.
If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one,
leave out the Provides.

urw-base35-nimbus-roman-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

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

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #8 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This
package contains Nimbus Mono PS font family, which are part of Level 2 Core
Font Set.
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.

urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url
https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided urw-fonts
If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package
should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency breakage.
If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one,
leave out the Provides.

urw-base35-nimbus-mono-ps-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

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

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #7 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-fonts-common-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-fonts-common.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-fonts-common.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/
(timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-fonts-common.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

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

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #6 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) distributable ->
distributed, distributive, attributable
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

urw-base35-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This meta-package will
install all the 35 fonts from the urw-base35-fonts sub-packages.
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.

urw-base35-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout 10
seconds)
urw-base35-fonts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided urw-fonts
If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package
should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency breakage.
If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one,
leave out the Provides.

urw-base35-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.

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

[Bug 1458247] Review Request: translate-shell - a command-line online translator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458247



--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/translate-shell

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-d05l-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-d05l-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-d05l-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C This package
contains D05L font family, which are part of Level 2 Core Font Set.
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.

urw-base35-d05l-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/
(timeout 10 seconds)
urw-base35-d05l-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.

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

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #3 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
Now I'll post outputs of rpmlint of source rpm and binary rpms:

$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.src.rpm 
urw-base35-fonts.src: I: checking
urw-base35-fonts.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) distributable ->
distributed, distributive, attributable
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

urw-base35-fonts.src: E: description-line-too-long C This meta-package will
install all the 35 fonts from the urw-base35-fonts sub-packages.
Your description lines must not exceed 80 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.

urw-base35-fonts.src: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout 10
seconds)
urw-base35-fonts.src: W: no-%build-section
The spec file does not contain a %build section.  Even if some packages don't
directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's configuration to
provide additional "under the hood" functionality, such as injection of
automatic -debuginfo subpackages.  Add the section, even if empty.

urw-base35-fonts.src: I: checking-url
http://downloads.ghostscript.com/public/fonts/urw-base35-20160926.zip (timeout
10 seconds)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

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

[Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840



--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -iv urw-base35-c059-fonts-20160926-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
urw-base35-c059-fonts.noarch: I: checking
urw-base35-c059-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url https://www.urwpp.de/en/ (timeout
10 seconds)
urw-base35-c059-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

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

[Bug 1451134] Review Request: lightdm-autologin-greeter - Autologin greeter using LightDM

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451134



--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System  ---
lightdm-autologin-greeter-1.0-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1458441] Review Request: python-script - Bindings for the scrypt key derivation function library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458441

Alfredo Moralejo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1458394] Re-Review Request: nuvolaruntime - Tight integration of web apps with your desktop, renaming nuvolaplayer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458394



--- Comment #6 from Vít Ondruch  ---
(In reply to mgans...@alice.de from comment #5)
> (In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #4)
> > * Please describe patches
> >   - You carry aroun nuvoplaruntie-wscript patch, but what is it purpose?
> > Where
> > is it coming from? Is it upstreamed or taken from upstream? While you
> > probably know, it would be helpful to others to attache 2 line comment
> > above the patch to explain the purpose and link the sources. Thx.
> 
> add description 

That is perfect. Thx.

> > * description
> >   - I'd keep just the first paragraph of the description (i.e. "Nuvola Apps
> > is a runtime for semi-sandboxed web apps ...").
> > 
> shorten the description as you mentioned

I would remove the first two lines as well ...

> thanks for your review

YAW

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 821406] Review Request: eiskaltdcpp - QT Direct Connect client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821406

Vasiliy Glazov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On|1458605 |



--- Comment #48 from Vasiliy Glazov  ---
Spec URL:
https://raw.github.com/RussianFedora/eiskaltdcpp/master/eiskaltdcpp.spec
SRPM URL:
http://koji.russianfedora.pro/kojifiles/packages/eiskaltdcpp/2.2.11/3.20170207git3b9c502.fc27/src/eiskaltdcpp-2.2.11-3.20170207git3b9c502.fc27.src.rpm

Removed Qt5Declarative dependency.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458605
[Bug 1458605] qt5-qtdeclarative: No configuration available for pkgconfig
-- 
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 1401013] Review Request: git-octopus - Git commands for continuous delivery

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401013

Xavier Bachelot  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-06-06 05:16:58



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1458780] Review Request: Recording - Records of user sessions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458780

Delyan Yanev  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 1458394] Re-Review Request: nuvolaruntime - Tight integration of web apps with your desktop, renaming nuvolaplayer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458394



--- Comment #5 from mgans...@alice.de  ---
(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #4)
> * Please describe patches
>   - You carry aroun nuvoplaruntie-wscript patch, but what is it purpose?
> Where
> is it coming from? Is it upstreamed or taken from upstream? While you
> probably know, it would be helpful to others to attache 2 line comment
> above the patch to explain the purpose and link the sources. Thx.

add description 

> * appindicator dependency
>   - Is it mandatory? Is it possible to disable it? I don't think this is
> supported by default in Fedora. As far as I understand it, you need Gnome
> Shell KStatusNotifierItem/AppIndicator Support plugin [1] installed to
> benefit from this ...

add configure option to disable appindicator

> * Space characters on the end of line
>   - There are several lines containing empty space after the end of line.
> This
> is just minor nit, but probably better to avoid this (the spaces are
> nicely
> visualized by colorized git diff output).

removed spaces at EOL

> * waf vs waf-3
>   - While the "waf-3" have to be required to pull in the Python3 version of
> waf,
> I think it should be fine to use the "waf" command. Or do you prefer to
> be
> explicit about it? I leave it up to you.

will take waf when commit it to git

> * description
>   - I'd keep just the first paragraph of the description (i.e. "Nuvola Apps
> is a runtime for semi-sandboxed web apps ...").
> 
shorten the description as you mentioned


> Otherwise the package is quite similar to the nuvolaplayer (not
> surprisingly) and I don't see anything major => APPROVED
> 
> 
> [1]: https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/615/appindicator-support/

thanks for your review


Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/nuvolaruntime.spec
SRPM URL:
https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/nuvolaruntime-4.4.0-3.fc25.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 1457929] Review Request: proxysql, a high-performance MySQL proxy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1457929

Pavel Raiskup  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #7 from Pavel Raiskup  ---
Re-adding 'needinfo' according to wiki/Package_Review_Process.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC 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 1458394] Re-Review Request: nuvolaruntime - Tight integration of web apps with your desktop, renaming nuvolaplayer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458394

Vít Ondruch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vondr...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Vít Ondruch  ---
* Please describe patches
  - You carry aroun nuvoplaruntie-wscript patch, but what is it purpose? Where
is it coming from? Is it upstreamed or taken from upstream? While you
probably know, it would be helpful to others to attache 2 line comment
above the patch to explain the purpose and link the sources. Thx.

* appindicator dependency
  - Is it mandatory? Is it possible to disable it? I don't think this is
supported by default in Fedora. As far as I understand it, you need Gnome
Shell KStatusNotifierItem/AppIndicator Support plugin [1] installed to
benefit from this ...

* Space characters on the end of line
  - There are several lines containing empty space after the end of line. This
is just minor nit, but probably better to avoid this (the spaces are nicely
visualized by colorized git diff output).

* waf vs waf-3
  - While the "waf-3" have to be required to pull in the Python3 version of
waf,
I think it should be fine to use the "waf" command. Or do you prefer to be
explicit about it? I leave it up to you.

* description
  - I'd keep just the first paragraph of the description (i.e. "Nuvola Apps
is a runtime for semi-sandboxed web apps ...").


Otherwise the package is quite similar to the nuvolaplayer (not surprisingly)
and I don't see anything major => APPROVED


[1]: https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/615/appindicator-support/

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

[Bug 1457929] Review Request: proxysql, a high-performance MySQL proxy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1457929



--- Comment #6 from Pavel Raiskup  ---
(In reply to Honza Horak from comment #4)
> I'm still thinking about whether running ProxySQL as `mysql` user has even
> some security issues (where a hacked proxysql daemon might potentially be
> able to read the MySQL database data on the same machine).

FWIW, this makes the '1.3' solution clear winner for me.  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 1444397] Review Request: python-certbot-nginx - nginx plugin to automatically configure certificate via certbot

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444397



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
certbot-0.14.1-3.el7, python-acme-0.14.1-1.el7,
python-certbot-apache-0.14.1-1.el7, python-certbot-nginx-0.14.1-1.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