[Bug 1460917] Review Request: rpkg - Command-line client tool to DistGit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460917



--- Comment #7 from Jakub Kadlčík  ---
> There are packages that depend on binary package 'rpkg' (which was removed
from fedora).  So the point is to provide 'rpkg' again without changing other
packages (e.g. to avoid requiring 'rpkg-client' on Fedora >= 26, and 'rpkg'
on RHEL and older fedoras).

Aha, now I see the point of subpackage called 'rpkg'

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

[Bug 1460317] Review Request: gnome-panel - GNOME Flashback panel

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460317



--- Comment #5 from Yaakov Selkowitz  ---
I cleaned up a lot of the cruft.  Files at the same location as comment 0.

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

[Bug 1460917] Review Request: rpkg - Command-line client tool to DistGit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460917

Pavel Raiskup  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also||https://bugzilla.redhat.com
   ||/show_bug.cgi?id=1452202



--- Comment #6 from Pavel Raiskup  ---
(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #5)
> Personally I have no problem with both rpkg-client and dist-git-client.
> May clime use what he likes best (even some other name)

The dist-git-client naming would mean that we are more coupled with 'dist-git'
project; that naming would be also better if we wanted to e.g. rename
'/bin/rpkg' into e.g. '/bin/dist-git' and do some distro-agnostic development
in this project.

OTOH, if we want to just provide '/bin/rpkg' for compatibility with previous
'rpkg', any 'rpkg-*' name is probably better.

> > %package -n rpkg
> 
> This will create a subpackage called 'rpkg' (not 'rpkg-client-rpkg') which I
> believe is still considered as name conflict. Can anyone confirm or deny
> that, please?

That's not a conflict IMO.  The 'rpkg' binary rpm doesn't exist in (rather
new) Fedora, as that's intentional decision done by release-engineering.

> > %files -n rpkg
> 
> and no %files section for the whole package means, that the rpkg-client RPM
> is not even built.
> 
> I am sorry, I don't understand the whole rpkg subpackge idea, can you please
> clarify it for me?

That's because rel-eng guys don't want to maintain this ~100 lines script
anymore in /usr/bin (they provide it as %doc file only).  Theirs point is
that this script was never meant to be working;  and the fact that we have
found an use-case for it doesn't count :).  Rhbz#1452202.

> As I see it, the purpose of this package is to ship a single executable
> python script `%{_bindir}/rpkg` which imports `pyrpkg` and therefore it
> requires python2-rpkg. That's basically it. Why to use subpackages at all?
> Can't we have just a simple rpkg-client package which has the
> (Build)Requires and %files itself?

There's 'rpkg' package in Fedora (dist-git project, even if it doesn't
generate 'rpkg' RPM anymore).  So to provide /bin/rpkg we need to have
different dist-git name, nevertheless I think we can still build 'rpkg'
package.

> I see that you want to stick to generating a RPM named 'rpkg' for some
> reason, but I don't understand why. Why is it better than RPM named
> 'rpkg-client'?

There are packages that depend on binary package 'rpkg' (which was removed
from fedora).  So the point is to provide 'rpkg' again without changing other
packages (e.g. to avoid requiring 'rpkg-client' on Fedora >= 26, and 'rpkg'
on RHEL and older fedoras).

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

[Bug 1409654] Review Request: python-pydocstyle - Python docstring style checker

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1409654

David H. Gutteridge  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||dhgutteri...@hotmail.com



--- Comment #11 from David H. Gutteridge  ---
Just adding myself to the CC list as an interested user, as I've found
pydocstyle handy in the past, and I appreciate the effort to add it to Fedora.

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

[Bug 1441024] Review Request: waiverdb - Companion service to ResultsDB, for recording waivers against test results

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441024



--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  ---
waiverdb-0.1.1-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1462760] Review Request: gir-to-d - Tool to create D bindings from GObject introspection files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462760

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 1462760] Review Request: gir-to-d - Tool to create D bindings from GObject introspection files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462760



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
gir-to-d-0.10.0-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-0ef6519c65

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

[Bug 1427341] Review Request: python-gamera - Gamera is a framework for building document analysis applications.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427341



--- Comment #36 from VincentS  ---
I've done all modifications recommended, here are new links.

I didn't try to generate documentation, I'm going to see this later on.

Spec URL: https://dl.casperlefantom.net/pub/review/python-gamera.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dl.casperlefantom.net/pub/review/python-gamera-3.4.3-5.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 821406] Review Request: eiskaltdcpp - QT Direct Connect client

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #56 from Vasiliy Glazov  ---
I will do it all tomorrow. Very busy last week.

-- 
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 1440704] Review Request: cpprest - C++ REST SDK

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1440704

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #19 from Neal Gompa  ---
Package looks good.

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 1440704] Review Request: cpprest - C++ REST SDK

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1440704



--- Comment #18 from Neal Gompa  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Ms-PL", "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD
 like)", "zlib/libpng", "BSD (3 clause)". 714 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/makerpm/1440704-cpprest/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 821406] Review Request: eiskaltdcpp - QT Direct Connect client

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #55 from Raphael Groner  ---
Friendly reminder. Any news here?

-- 
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 1377038] Review Request: sxhkd - Simple X hotkey daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377038



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
sxhkd-0.5.7-1.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-aef46593b7

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

[Bug 1432076] Review Request: urh - Universal Radio Hacker: investigate wireless protocols like a boss

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432076



--- Comment #6 from Arthur Mello  ---
Thx for addressing the comments.

Package Review
==

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

Issues:
===

= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 384 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck attached.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
 contains icons.
 Note: icons in urh
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
 desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: 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 

[Bug 1441803] Review Request: kproperty - Property editing framework with editor widget

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441803



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/kproperty

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

[Bug 1441804] Review Request: kdb - Database Connectivity and Creation Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441804



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/kdb

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

[Bug 1441798] Review Request: kreport - Framework for creation and generation of reports

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441798



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/kreport

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

[Bug 1370751] Review Request: python-django-sampledatahelper - Helper class for generate sample data for django apps development

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370751



--- Comment #1 from Watson Yuuma Sato  ---
Package Review
==

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

Issues:
===

- rpmlint issues
-- Remove shebang from python libraries

= 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: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 13 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/wsato/review/mock_tests/srpm/review-python-django-
 sampledatahelper/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2
 -django-sampledatahelper , python3-django-sampledatahelper
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: 

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #24 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/proxysql

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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

Augusto Caringi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: proxysql, a |Review Request: proxysql -
   |high-performance MySQL  |A high-performance MySQL
   |proxy   |proxy



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

[Bug 1460630] Review Request: copr-rpmbuild - performs COPR builds

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460630



--- Comment #4 from Jakub Kadlčík  ---
> I preferred to use name 'copr-rpmbuild' explicitly in the end. Hope, it's ok.

Sure, I have not problem with this. It was just a suggestion


> * Wed Jun 14 2017 clime  0.3-1
> copr-rpmbuild.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.3-1 
> ['0.3-1.git.10.376b27c.fc27', '0.3-1.git.10.376b27c']

Since the release is not just 1, I believe that in changelog there should be

* Wed Jun 14 2017 clime  0.3-1.git.10.376b27c

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

[Bug 1460524] Review Request: php-fig-link-util - Common utility implementations for HTTP links

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460524



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-psr-link-1.0.0-1.fc25 php-fig-link-util-1.0.0-1.fc25 has been submitted as
an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-e5945647bb

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

[Bug 1460524] Review Request: php-fig-link-util - Common utility implementations for HTTP links

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460524



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-psr-link-1.0.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-cee430d0da

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

[Bug 1460524] Review Request: php-fig-link-util - Common utility implementations for HTTP links

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460524



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-psr-link-1.0.0-1.fc26 php-fig-link-util-1.0.0-1.fc26 has been submitted as
an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b231c63b58

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

[Bug 1460523] Review Request: php-psr-link - Common interfaces for HTTP links (PSR-13)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460523



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-psr-link-1.0.0-1.fc26 php-fig-link-util-1.0.0-1.fc26 has been submitted as
an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b231c63b58

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

[Bug 1460524] Review Request: php-fig-link-util - Common utility implementations for HTTP links

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460524



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-psr-link-1.0.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-54967bb36e

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

[Bug 1460523] Review Request: php-psr-link - Common interfaces for HTTP links (PSR-13)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460523



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-psr-link-1.0.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-54967bb36e

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

[Bug 1460523] Review Request: php-psr-link - Common interfaces for HTTP links (PSR-13)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460523



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-psr-link-1.0.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-cee430d0da

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

[Bug 1460523] Review Request: php-psr-link - Common interfaces for HTTP links (PSR-13)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460523



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-psr-link-1.0.0-1.fc25 php-fig-link-util-1.0.0-1.fc25 has been submitted as
an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-e5945647bb

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

[Bug 1460523] Review Request: php-psr-link - Common interfaces for HTTP links (PSR-13)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460523

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 1460524] Review Request: php-fig-link-util - Common utility implementations for HTTP links

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460524



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-psr-link-1.0.0-1.fc24 php-fig-link-util-1.0.0-1.fc24 has been submitted as
an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-622a500d85

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

[Bug 1460524] Review Request: php-fig-link-util - Common utility implementations for HTTP links

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460524

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 1460523] Review Request: php-psr-link - Common interfaces for HTTP links (PSR-13)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460523



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-psr-link-1.0.0-1.fc24 php-fig-link-util-1.0.0-1.fc24 has been submitted as
an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-622a500d85

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

[Bug 1441798] Review Request: kreport - Framework for creation and generation of reports

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441798

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
> BuildRequires: python
Shouldn't this by python2 or python3 instead? If any version is OK, maybe add a
comment.

Url, Source0: http → https.

- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
  file-validate if there is such a file.

I think this applies to .desktop files in /usr/share/kservicetypes5/ too. It
should be validated.

rpmlint:
kreport.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.0.1-0.1 ['3.0.1-1.fc27',
'3.0.1-1']
Please fix.

kreport.x86_64: W: no-documentation
kreport.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
kreport.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
kreport-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
kreport-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
All OK.

4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.

+ package name is OK
+ licence is acceptable for Fedora (LGPLv2+)
+ license is specified correctly
+ builds and installs OK
+ P/R/BR look correct
  (some Requires might be trimmed possibly)
+ scriptlets follow the guidelines
+ fedora-review finds no issues apart from the desktop file validation

Looks all good, apart from some minor issues which can be fixed when importing.
Package is APPROVED.

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

[Bug 1445824] Review Request: python-testfixtures - Collection of helpers and mock objects for unit tests and doc tests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1445824

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-testfixtures-4.14.3-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-298c99b698

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

[Bug 1440704] Review Request: cpprest - C++ REST SDK

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1440704

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ngomp...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #17 from Neal Gompa  ---
Taking this 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 1377038] Review Request: sxhkd - Simple X hotkey daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377038

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
sxhkd-0.5.7-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-824d1161bd

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

[Bug 1377038] Review Request: sxhkd - Simple X hotkey daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377038



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
sxhkd-0.5.7-1.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-2017-71f21cedb9

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

[Bug 1460917] Review Request: rpkg - Command-line client tool to DistGit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460917



--- Comment #5 from Jakub Kadlčík  ---
> What about the name dist-git-client?

Personally I have no problem with both rpkg-client and dist-git-client. May
clime use what he likes best (even some other name)


> Source0: rpkg-client-git-4.6a6.tar.gz

It is not docummented, how can we obtain this archive. In the first version of
your spec file there was a

# Source is created by:
# git clone https://pagure.io/rpkg-client.git
# cd rpkg-client
# tito build --tgz

if it is still valid, can you please put it back?


> %package -n rpkg

This will create a subpackage called 'rpkg' (not 'rpkg-client-rpkg') which I
believe is still considered as name conflict. Can anyone confirm or deny that,
please?

Also with

> %files -n rpkg

and no %files section for the whole package means, that the rpkg-client RPM is
not even built.

I am sorry, I don't understand the whole rpkg subpackge idea, can you please
clarify it for me?
As I see it, the purpose of this package is to ship a single executable python
script `%{_bindir}/rpkg` which imports `pyrpkg` and therefore it requires
python2-rpkg. That's basically it. Why to use subpackages at all? Can't we have
just a simple rpkg-client package which has the (Build)Requires and %files
itself?

I see that you want to stick to generating a RPM named 'rpkg' for some reason,
but I don't understand why. Why is it better than RPM named 'rpkg-client'?

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

[Bug 1441803] Review Request: kproperty - Property editing framework with editor widget

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441803

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
%description should be wrapped to <80 columns.

Url, Source0: http → https.

Rpmlint
---
Checking: kproperty-3.0.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
  kproperty-devel-3.0.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
  kproperty-debuginfo-3.0.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
  kproperty-3.0.1-1.fc27.src.rpm
kproperty.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C A property editing framework
with editor widget similar to what is 
known from Qt Designer.
kproperty.src: E: description-line-too-long C A property editing framework with
editor widget similar to what is known from Qt Designer.
Right.

kproperty.x86_64: W: no-documentation
kproperty.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
kproperty.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
kproperty-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
kproperty-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The rest is OK.

kproperty.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libKPropertyCore3.so.3.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
kproperty.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libKPropertyCore3.so.3.0 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1
kproperty.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libKPropertyWidgets3.so.3.0 /lib64/libKF5ConfigGui.so.5
kproperty.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libKPropertyWidgets3.so.3.0 /lib64/libQt5Xml.so.5
kproperty.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libKPropertyWidgets3.so.3.0 /lib64/libm.so.6
kproperty.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libKPropertyWidgets3.so.3.0 /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1
Hm, those might be worth cleaning up. At least libKF5ConfigGui, libQt5Xml.

+ package name is OK
+ licence is acceptable for Fedora (LGPLv2+)
+ license is specified correctly
+ builds and installs OK
+ P/R/BR look correct
  (some Requires might be trimmed possibly)
+ scriptlets follow the guidelines
+ fedora-review finds no issues

Package is APPROVED.

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

[Bug 1441804] Review Request: kdb - Database Connectivity and Creation Framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441804

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
> BuildRequires: python

Shouldn't this by python2 or python3 instead? If any version is OK, maybe add a
comment.

> # sqlite driver included in base (for now)
> %{_qt5_plugindir}/kdb3/kdb_sqlitedriver.so

Maybe add Provides: %{name}-driver-sqlite%{?_isa} = %{name}-%{version}
so that it's easier to split out in the future? (Other packages can use
R:%{name}-driver-sqlite w/o worrying about the potential future split.)

http://community.kde.org/KDb → https://
http://download.kde.org/stable/ → https://

+ package name is OK
+ licence is acceptable for Fedora (LGPLv2+)
+ license is specified correctly
  (docs seems to have a different license, but they're not in any of the binary
packages, so irrelevant.)
+ builds and installs OK
+ P/R/BR look correct
+ scriptlets follow the guidelines
+ fedora-review finds no issues

I didn't test the upgrade paths, but the Provides/Obsoletes seems all good.

Rpmlint (installed packages)

kdb-driver-postgresql.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided
koffice-kexi-driver-pgsql
kdb.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided calligra-kexi-driver-sybase
kdb.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided calligra-kexi-driver-xbase
kdb-driver-mysql.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided koffice-kexi-driver-mysql
OK.

kdb-driver-postgresql.x86_64: W: no-documentation
kdb-driver-postgresql.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
kdb-driver-postgresql.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
kdb-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
kdb-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
kdb.x86_64: W: no-documentation
kdb.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
kdb.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
kdb.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary kdb3_sqlite3_dump
kdb-driver-mysql.x86_64: W: no-documentation
kdb-driver-mysql.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
kdb-driver-mysql.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
All OK.

kdb.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.0.1-0.1 ['3.0.1-1.fc27',
'3.0.1-1']
Please fix.

kdb.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libKDb3.so.3.0
/lib64/libm.so.6
kdb.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libKDb3.so.3.0
/lib64/libgcc_s.so.1
kdb.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libKDb3.so.3.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5
Might be worth cleaning up at some point...

5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 20 warnings.

Package is APPROVED.

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

[Bug 1432076] Review Request: urh - Universal Radio Hacker: investigate wireless protocols like a boss

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432076

Jaroslav Škarvada  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(pcah...@redhat.co |fedora-review?
   |m)  |



--- Comment #5 from Jaroslav Škarvada  ---
New version:
Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/urh/urh.spec
SRPM URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/urh/urh-1.6.6-1.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 1462760] Review Request: gir-to-d - Tool to create D bindings from GObject introspection files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462760



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/gir-to-d

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

[Bug 1432076] Review Request: urh - Universal Radio Hacker: investigate wireless protocols like a boss

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432076



--- Comment #4 from Jaroslav Škarvada  ---
(In reply to Arthur Mello from comment #3)
Thanks for the review.

> Package Review
> ==
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> 
> 
> Issues:
> ===
> - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
>   Note: urh : /usr/lib64/python3.5/site-
>   packages/urh/dev/native/includes/libhackrf/hackrf.h urh :
>   /usr/lib64/python3.5/site-packages/urh/dev/native/includes/rtl-sdr.h urh
>   : /usr/lib64/python3.5/site-packages/urh/dev/native/includes/rtl-
>   sdr_export.h
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
>
It seems it bundled libraries, thus removed them.

> - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
>   are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
>   Note: These BR are not needed: gcc-c++
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
>
False positive, all deps has to be listed, no exception at the moment:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Build-Time_Dependencies_.28BuildRequires.29


> 
> = MUST items =
> 
> C/C++:
> [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
> [x]: Package contains no static executables.
> [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
>  Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
>  attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. 
> 
> /*
>   * Unversioned so-files generated via CPython.
>  
> /

IMHO no ld path, thus probably OK.

> Generic:
> [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
>  other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
>  Guidelines.
> 
> /*
>   * Legal section mentions that if src contains generated code, original
>   * source files from which it was generated must be added. Some binaries
>   * presented on src are deleted during %prep but data/hacker.prof is
> still
>   * present. It is not clear if such file is necessary to build package
> and
>   * how it is generated.
>  
> /

hacker.prof seems like lsprof profiling data, you can visualize it by e.g.:

$ gprof2dot-py3 -f pstats hacker.prof | dot -Tpng -o output.png

very probably upstream leftover and useless for the distro, so we can remove
it.

> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>  Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>  found: "Apache (v2.0)", "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL
>  (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 351 files have unknown
>  license. Detailed output of licensecheck attached:
> 
> /*
>   * Following documentation under Fedora Licensing, ASL 2.0 (pkg license)
>   * it is not compatible with GPL v2. Package contains GPL v2 or later 
>   * license in some files. It is not clear for me if ASL is compatible
> with
>   * such scenario, so please ignore this if it was. 
>  
> /

Thanks for the catch, it links with the hackrf and rtl-sdr which are GPLv2 and
GPLv2+ respectively thus we also need GPLv2. The costas_loop is not
packaged/used, so we are probably OK here, but I am explicitly removing it in
the %prep to be 100% sure.

> [!] : Sources contain only permissible code or content.
> 
> /*
>   * Doubts about hacker.proof file
>  
> /
Removed, it should be resolved now.

> [!]: Development files must be in a -devel package
> 
> /*
>   * Again CPython files, not sure if we are able to remove those or no
>  
> /
I removed them, I think it should be OK now.

> [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
>
It could be OK now (or at least better).

> [!]: Latest version is packaged.
>
It was a while, updated.

> [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
> [!]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
>  translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.

Non mandatory, it's rather an exception when it does in Fedora :)

> [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported

[Bug 1452985] Review Request: rakudo-zef - Perl6 Module Management

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452985

Gerd Pokorra  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: zef - Perl6 |Review Request: rakudo-zef
   |Module Management   |- Perl6 Module Management



--- Comment #18 from Gerd Pokorra  ---
- remove QA_SKIP_BUILD_ROOT variable
- split installation in two steps
- add information of the creating of the tar archive
- rename the package to rakudo-zef
- update to 0.20170619git.48efafc


Successful scratch builds:

F25:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20065540

F26:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20065487


The new srpm-URL is:
ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/zef/srpm/rakudo-zef-0.20170619git.48efafc-1.fc25.src.rpm


ftp://ftp.uni-siegen.de/pub/review/zef/spec/rakudo-zef.spec links to version 1
of the new rakudo-zef spec file of the new zef version.


I renamed the package to rakudo-zef, because with installing 'dnf install
rakudo-*' the package manager should be installed.



rakudo builds of 2017.06 are done and provides the script tools/install-dist.pl
with macro as:
%perl6_mod_inst/usr/lib64/perl6/bin/mod_inst.pl

This rakudo updates are at:

F25:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-0e46c90218

F26:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-38e81c3b2c



The rakudo-zef spec file do not use the tools/install-dist.pl script, I like to
use the own 'bin/zef install' command for the zef build.


The rakudo-zef package need the macros provided from the rakudo-version >=
0.2017.04.2-4 to build which is in the update repository of F25 and F26.

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

[Bug 1441024] Review Request: waiverdb - Companion service to ResultsDB, for recording waivers against test results

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441024



--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System  ---
waiverdb-0.1.1-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 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 1462760] Review Request: gir-to-d - Tool to create D bindings from GObject introspection files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462760

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter  ---
scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20065556

$ rpmlint ./gir-to-d-0.10.0-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm 
gir-to-d.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US typelib -> type lib,
type-lib, Teletype
gir-to-d.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/girtod 775
gir-to-d.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary girtod
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

1. permissions, as noted by rpmlint, 
/usr/bin/girtod 775
is a little surprising and non-standard (compared to expected 755), please
confirm this is purposeful and needed.  Otherwise, use 755.

naming: ok

sources: ok
5620b303fb174626bee2f7a2ea4e698f  gir-to-d-0.10.0.tar.gz

license: ok

macros: ok (mostly). I'd argue that ideally workarounds like:
--
export DFLAGS="%{_d_optflags}"
# Drop '-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld' as LDC doesn't support
it
export LDFLAGS="-Wl,-z,relro"
--
should be handled automatically elsewhere (like ldc or macros.ldc), so all
consumer apps/pkgs would not have to include such workarounds.

scriptlets: n/a

otherwise, .spec is fairly simple and clean.


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 1462760] Review Request: gir-to-d - Tool to create D bindings from GObject introspection files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462760

Rex Dieter  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter  ---
I can review.

Please consider a review swap in return, one of those tracked @ bug #1441801
would be nice, 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 1462760] New: Review Request: gir-to-d - Tool to create D bindings from GObject introspection files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462760

Bug ID: 1462760
   Summary: Review Request: gir-to-d - Tool to create D bindings
from GObject introspection files
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ngomp...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://kinginuyasha.enanocms.org/downloads/gir-to-d.spec
SRPM URL:
http://kinginuyasha.enanocms.org/downloads/gir-to-d-0.10.0-1.fc25.src.rpm

Description:
gir-to-d is a tool to create D bindings using GObject Introspection
"typelib" files, enabling quick and easy use of various libraries
written using GObject conventions with the D language.

Fedora Account System Username: ngompa

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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

Vít Ondruch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||vondr...@redhat.com
 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |



--- Comment #23 from Vít Ondruch  ---
Hi Augusto,

I am clearing the FE-NEEDSPONSOR flag now, since I sponsored you into packagers
group. You should be able to proceed with package request in pkgdb [1].

I hope that praiskup, hhorak and mschorm will take care about you, but don't
hesitate contacting me should you have any additional question about packaging. 



[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Add_Package_to_Source_Code_Management_.28SCM.29_system_and_Set_Owner


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 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649



--- Comment #16 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-exabgp

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

[Bug 1457725] Review Request: xdg-desktop-portal-kde - Qt/ KF5 backend for xdg-desktop-portal

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1457725



--- Comment #4 from Martin Kyral  ---
Thanks for the feedback. I incorporated the proposed changes in the spec file,
available in copr dist-git.

Spec URL:
http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/mkyral/plasma-unstable/xdg-desktop-portal-kde.git/tree/xdg-desktop-portal-kde.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mkyral/plasma-unstable/fedora-25-x86_64/00567865-xdg-desktop-portal-kde/xdg-desktop-portal-kde-5.10.2-0.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 1457714] Review Request: plymouth-kcm - KCM for setting plymouth theme

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1457714



--- Comment #5 from Martin Kyral  ---
Thanks for the feedback. I incorporated the proposed changes in the spec file,
available in copr dist-git.

Spec URL:
http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/mkyral/plasma-unstable/plymouth-kcm.git/tree/plymouth-kcm.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mkyral/plasma-unstable/fedora-25-x86_64/00567863-plymouth-kcm/plymouth-kcm-5.10.2-0.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 |fedora-review+
   |om) |



--- Comment #22 from Pavel Raiskup  ---
Looks good to me.

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 106
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/praiskup/reviews/proxysql/1457929-proxysql/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /etc, /usr/share/man, /var,
 /usr, /usr/bin, /var/lib, /usr/share/licenses,
 /usr/lib/systemd/system, /usr/lib, /usr/lib/systemd, /usr/share,
 /usr/share/doc, /usr/share/man/man1
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
praiskup: nothis seems to be relaxed nowadays:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries?rd=Packaging:Bundled_Libraries
[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
praiskup: %attr would be better (single instances), but the usecase is valid
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
praiskup: there's not much we can do about it now
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 225280 bytes in 16 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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, 

[Bug 1452649] Review Request: python-exabgp - Package review request for ExaBGP spec

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452649

Haïkel Guémar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||karlthe...@gmail.com
 Depends On||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)



--- Comment #15 from Haïkel Guémar  ---
I sponsor lhinds.


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 1354115] Review Request: python-aenum - Advanced Enumerations ( compatible with Python's stdlib Enum), NamedTuples, and NamedConstants

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354115

Jan Černý  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1438775] Review Request: cppcodec - Header-only C++11 library to encode/decode base64/base64url/ base32/base32hex/hex

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438775

Jan Černý  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1354115] Review Request: python-aenum - Advanced Enumerations ( compatible with Python's stdlib Enum), NamedTuples, and NamedConstants

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354115

Jan Černý  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jce...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jce...@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 1438775] Review Request: cppcodec - Header-only C++11 library to encode/decode base64/base64url/ base32/base32hex/hex

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438775

Jan Černý  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jce...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jce...@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 1460630] Review Request: copr-rpmbuild - performs COPR builds

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460630



--- Comment #3 from cl...@redhat.com ---
Hello, here are changes according to review:

Spec URL: http://clime.cz/copr-rpmbuild.spec

SRPM URL: http://clime.cz/copr-rpmbuild-0.3-1.git.10.376b27c.fc25.src.rpm

I preferred to use name 'copr-rpmbuild' explicitly in the end. Hope, it's ok.

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

[Bug 1462682] New: Review Request: libdazzle - Experimental new features for GTK+ and GLib

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462682

Bug ID: 1462682
   Summary: Review Request: libdazzle - Experimental new features
for GTK+ and GLib
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: yan...@declera.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/libdazzle/libdazzle.spec
SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/libdazzle/libdazzle-3.25.3-1.fc27.src.rpm
Description: libdazzle is a collection of fancy features for GLib and Gtk+ that
aren't quite ready or generic enough for use inside those libraries. This is
often a proving ground for new widget prototypes. Applications such as Builder
tend to drive development of this project.
Fedora Account System Username: yaneti

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

[Bug 1460917] Review Request: rpkg - Command-line client tool to DistGit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460917



--- Comment #4 from cl...@redhat.com ---
Hello, here are changes according to review:

Spec URL: http://clime.cz/rpkg-client.spec
SRPM URL: http://clime.cz/rpkg-client-0.1-1.git.4.6a6.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 1445824] Review Request: python-testfixtures - Collection of helpers and mock objects for unit tests and doc tests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1445824



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-testfixtures-4.14.3-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-298c99b698

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

[Bug 1445824] Review Request: python-testfixtures - Collection of helpers and mock objects for unit tests and doc tests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1445824

Björn "besser82" Esser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed|2017-06-18 17:56:34 |2017-06-19 03:35:14



--- Comment #11 from Björn "besser82" Esser  ---
(In reply to David Hannequin from comment #10)
> This package don't work on Fedora 25.

That's because of missing BuildRequires in Fedora <= 25.


> And you stole my work... 

You didn't read the Fedora CLA, huh?  Read it carefully and then I expect you
to be sorry…


> Be serious and made this package work.

Is there any guideline around enforcing me to do so?  It seems your parents
didn't teach you about politeness…

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

[Bug 1447089] Review Request: python-XStatic-Patternfly-Bootstrap-Treeview - Patternfly Bootstrap Treeview CSS /JS framework (XStatic packaging standard)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447089



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-XStatic-Patternfly-Bootstrap-Treeview-2.1.3.2-1.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-2017-631efd272e

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

[Bug 1116177] Review Request: cross-kernel-headers - Header files for the Linux kernel for use by glibc

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1116177

Robin Lee  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Last Closed||2017-06-19 03:24:33



--- Comment #8 from Robin Lee  ---
Close as the function is provided by kernel-cross-headers, a subpackage of
kernel package. And any enhancement request can be posted against kernel
package.

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

[Bug 1460917] Review Request: rpkg - Command-line client tool to DistGit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460917



--- Comment #3 from Pavel Raiskup  ---
> May I suggest naming it rpkg-client as the upstream project names?

Good point, unfortunately rename is needed.  What about the name
dist-git-client?

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