[Bug 1462412] Review Request: tworld - a puzzle game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462412



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
tworld-1.3.2-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-5cc41b463f

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

[Bug 1461769] Review Request: module-macros - provides macros for module development

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1461769

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-06-27 20:50:17



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
module-macros-0.1-1.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 1465676] New: Review Request: mingw-graphite2 - MinGW Windows graphite2 library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465676

Bug ID: 1465676
   Summary: Review Request: mingw-graphite2 - MinGW Windows
graphite2 library
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-graphite2.spec
SRPM URL:
https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-graphite2-1.3.10-1.fc27.src.rpm
Description: MinGW Windows graphite2 library
Fedora Account System Username: smani

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

[Bug 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214

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 1432214] Review Request: reg - Docker registry v2 command line client.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432214



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
reg-0.4.1-3.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-cf91759923

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

[Bug 1416705] Review Request: python-kivy - Kivy - Multimedia / Multitouch framework in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1416705

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ra...@electronsweatshop.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ra...@electronsweatshop.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



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

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

[bugzilla]

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

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tade...@nez.si
  Flags||needinfo?(tade...@nez.si)



--- Comment #12 from Randy Barlow  ---
Hello!

This is just a reminder that this package is approved and ready to be added to
Fedora. 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 1463082] Review Request: python-pocketlint - Support for running pylint against projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1463082



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pocketlint-0.15-1.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-2017-8ce8e10468

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

[Bug 1462412] Review Request: tworld - a puzzle game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462412



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
tworld-1.3.2-3.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-b66f4ca0b3

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System  ---
cpprest-2.9.1-16.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-e5926e9706

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

[Bug 1465335] Review Request: python-asn1crypto - Fast Python ASN.1 parser and serializer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465335

Christian Heimes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2017-06-27 15:56:49



--- Comment #5 from Christian Heimes  ---
Thank Gwyn!

Nathaniel, I have build the package for rawhide, f26, f25 and f24,
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=24330212

Upstream has open issues for LICENSE
https://github.com/wbond/asn1crypto/issues/58 and tests
https://github.com/wbond/asn1crypto/issues/59

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

[Bug 1465335] Review Request: python-asn1crypto - Fast Python ASN.1 parser and serializer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465335

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |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 1465335] Review Request: python-asn1crypto - Fast Python ASN.1 parser and serializer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465335



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-asn1crypto-0.22.0-2.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-bff7476f05

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

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #60 from Raphael Groner  ---
Looks fine now. APPROVED

-- 
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 1462443] Review Request: libaec - Adaptive Entropy Coding library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462443



--- Comment #12 from Christoph Junghans  ---
Created attachment 1292418
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1292418=edit
hdf5: enable szip support through libaec

With this patch we can now enable szip support in hdf5:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20122306

Patch was send to hdf5-ow...@fedoraproject.org.

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

[Bug 1462443] Review Request: libaec - Adaptive Entropy Coding library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462443



--- Comment #11 from Christoph Junghans  ---
I updated the wiki on szip slightly:
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Forbidden_items=495449=492921

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

[Bug 1463082] Review Request: python-pocketlint - Support for running pylint against projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1463082

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pocketlint-0.15-1.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-2017-96c9d5a464

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

[Bug 1462412] Review Request: tworld - a puzzle game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462412



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
tworld-1.3.2-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-4056ef5f5b

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

[Bug 1462412] Review Request: tworld - a puzzle game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462412

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
tworld-1.3.2-3.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-10cc766f66

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

[Bug 1465588] New: Review Request: xoreos-tools - Tools to help the development of xoreos

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465588

Bug ID: 1465588
   Summary: Review Request: xoreos-tools - Tools to help the
development of xoreos
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: rosser@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/xoreos/xoreos-tools.spec
SRPM URL:
https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/xoreos/xoreos-tools-0.0.4-1.fc25.src.rpm

Description: A collection of tools to help with the reverse-engineering of
BioWare's
Aurora engine games. xoreos-tools is part of the xoreos project; please
see the xoreos website and its GitHub repositories for details,
especially the main README.md.

Currently, the following tools are included:

* gff2xml: Convert BioWare GFF to XML
* tlk2xml: Convert BioWare TLK to XML
* xml2tlk: Convert XML back to BioWare TLK
* convert2da: Convert BioWare 2DA/GDA to 2DA/CSV
* fixpremiumgff: Repair BioWare GFF files in NWN premium module HAKs
* unerf: Extract BioWare ERF archives
* unherf: Extract BioWare HERF archives
* unrim: Extract BioWare RIM archives
* unnds: Extract Nintendo DS roms
* unnsbtx: Extract Nintendo NSBTX textures into TGA images
* unkeybif: Extract BioWare KEY/BIF archives
* desmall: Decompress "small" (Nintendo DS LZSS, types 0x00 and 0x10) files
* xoreostex2tga: Convert BioWare's texture formats into TGA
* nbfs2tga: Convert Nintendo's raw NBFS images into TGA
* ncgr2tga: Convert Nintendo's NCGR images into TGA
* cbgt2tga: Convert CBGT images into TGA
* cdpth2tga: Convert CDPTH depth images into TGA
* ncsdis: Disassemble NWScript bytecode

Fedora Account System Username: tc01

(The Xoreos project seeks to provide a FOSS replacement engine for classic
Bioware games running on the Aurora engine, in analogy to projects like OpenMW.
It is far from completion, and currently has dependencies that aren't permitted
to be packaged in Fedora. However the tools suite is much more useful today and
does not have this problem, which is why I'm submitting a review now).

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

[Bug 1426972] Review Request: hugo - A Fast and Flexible Static Site Generator built with love in GoLang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426972



--- Comment #14 from Athos Ribeiro  ---
Thank you again Jan!

Here are the new sources: There are 2 failing tests that I commented out: One
tests upstream releases (which requires their git repository). We do not want
to test that. The other depends on the host time zone, So I consider it a bad
test to have in the package.

Last, there are some hugolib tests failing. We need a newer
golang-github-spf13-viper version (master's HEAD is fine, at
c1de95864d73a5465492829d7cb2dd422b19ac96.

So once again (hope it's the last time) I have to bother Jan :) Thank you for
all the help here, Jan!!!

Spec URL: https://athoscr.fedorapeople.org/packaging/hugo.spec
SRPM URL: https://athoscr.fedorapeople.org/packaging/hugo-0.24-2.fc25.src.rpm

This package is ready for review now! :)

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

[Bug 1427634] Review Request: syncthing - Continuous File Synchronization

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427634



--- Comment #15 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Updated .spec and SRPM files for the newest 0.14.31 upstream release:

Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/syncthing.spec

SRPM URL:
https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/syncthing-0.14.31-1.fc26.src.rpm

Additionally, I have included a systemd preset file to *not* enable the
syncthing user service for all users at installation, matching the default
system preset present on fedora (which is missing for user services).

successful COPR build for fedora 24, 25, 26, rawhide, with all missing
dependencies present:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/decathorpe/golang-staging/build/571293/

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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 #37 from Charalampos Stratakis  ---
Hello Vincent and thanks for continuing working on it. I currently replied to
the legal mailing list as the license issue is not yet entirely clear. However
I will proceed with the fedora-review tool so the review can move a bit
forward.


Package Review
==

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


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

Note from reviewer: gcc is now required to be listed as a dependency.
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequires_and_Requires


= 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.

Note from reviewer: The shared libraries are in
/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/gamera/ and upstream does not version them
however they are required for runtime, thus they are not development .so files.

They are also not included in ld path.

[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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

[?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "LGPL (v2)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or
 later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "CC by-sa GPL", "Unknown or generated",
 "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "NTP", "MIT/X11 (BSD like) NTP", "LGPL", "GPL
 (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 295 files have unknown
 license.

Note from reviewer: Still waiting on an answer from the legal mailing list.
Thread here:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/AB5S7LXEVXWR4VRKYGZO3MXHGFFZJAGO/

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.

Note from reviewer: Still waiting on an answer from the legal mailing list

[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.

Note from reviewer: FPC involvement is not required anymore, see
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1483

[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.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.

Note from reviewer: Package should have a runtime requirement for wxPython as
the gamera_gui binary needs it to run.
If it's not present a traceback is shown.

You should add:

Requires: wxPython

Right after the summary tag of the python2 subpackage.

[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.

Note from reviewer: Documentation is not being built. It is not a blocker for
the review
and it's up to the packager if he wants to do it at some point in the future.

[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 

[Bug 1433617] Review Request: python-proselint - A linter for prose

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433617

Yatin Karel  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||yka...@redhat.com



--- Comment #3 from Yatin Karel  ---
This is an un-official review.

Package Review
==

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

Issues:
- python2 subpackage contains Provides python3-*, it should provide python2
binary
- %check can be corrected as https://github.com/amperser/proselint/issues/623
is fixed
  upstream
- For consistency one BuildRequires/Requires per line.
- Invalid souce URL
- Why unversioned package(only containing proselint binary) is created:
proselint,
  are subpackages not sufficient?
  If proselint binary differs in functioning in python2/python3 it would be
good you ship
  both proselint-2, proselint-3 and symlink proselint with proselint-2 or
proselint-3.
  This way it fixes your hack for creating and removing binary for pytho2
subpackage.
- Good to use versioned packages if available: python-setuptools -->
python2-setuptools,
  same is for click, future, six
- To me it looks the invalid use of Suggests and Recommends, any reason for
using them in
  spec file.
- Correct rpmlint errors


= 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", "*No copyright* BSD
 (unspecified)". 221 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/ykarel/work/fedora-reviews/1433617-python-
 proselint/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: 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 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not 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 

[Bug 1465335] Review Request: python-asn1crypto - Fast Python ASN.1 parser and serializer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465335



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-asn1crypto

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

[Bug 1465494] Review Request: perl-System-Info - Factory for system specific information objects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465494

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar  ---
URL and Source0 addresses are usable. Ok.
Source0 archive (SHA-256:
9e44839f9ca8949711d7320a02f359bc8a61716b3fe27182f2a0b1e6fd1b350c) is original.
Ok.
The System-Info-0.055-Add-arm-for-aarch64-RT-119691.patch is Ok.
Summary verified from lib/System/Info.pm. Ok.
Description verified from lib/System/Info.pm. Ok.
License verified from README, lib/System/Info/Base.pm, lib/System/Info.pm and
other files. Ok.
No XS files, noarch BuildArch is Ok.

TODO: Align Patch0 value indentation to other items.

The Win32 and Haiku::SysInfo modules are not used. Ok.

Fix: Build-require `perl(Carp)' for runnig tests (t/sysinfo_macos.t:12).
FIX: Do not build-require `perl(Data::Peek)'. It's not used anywhere.

All tests pass. Ok.

$ rpmlint perl-System-Info.spec ../SRPMS/perl-System-Info-0.055-1.fc27.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-System-Info-0.055-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.

$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-System-Info-0.055-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
t@fedora-27 SPECS]$ rpm -q -lv -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-System-Info-0.055-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jun 27 16:47
/usr/share/doc/perl-System-Info
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot  783 Apr 24  2016
/usr/share/doc/perl-System-Info/CONTRIBUTING.md
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1022 May 12 12:16
/usr/share/doc/perl-System-Info/ChangeLog
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1451 Feb 28 18:22
/usr/share/doc/perl-System-Info/README
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2208 Jun 27 16:47
/usr/share/man/man3/System::Info.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1883 Jun 27 16:47
/usr/share/man/man3/System::Info::AIX.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1627 Jun 27 16:47
/usr/share/man/man3/System::Info::BSD.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2267 Jun 27 16:47
/usr/share/man/man3/System::Info::Base.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1657 Jun 27 16:47
/usr/share/man/man3/System::Info::Cygwin.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1617 Jun 27 16:47
/usr/share/man/man3/System::Info::Darwin.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1575 Jun 27 16:47
/usr/share/man/man3/System::Info::Generic.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1622 Jun 27 16:47
/usr/share/man/man3/System::Info::HPUX.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1618 Jun 27 16:47
/usr/share/man/man3/System::Info::Haiku.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1644 Jun 27 16:47
/usr/share/man/man3/System::Info::Irix.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2234 Jun 27 16:47
/usr/share/man/man3/System::Info::Linux.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1652 Jun 27 16:47
/usr/share/man/man3/System::Info::Solaris.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1645 Jun 27 16:47
/usr/share/man/man3/System::Info::VMS.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1648 Jun 27 16:47
/usr/share/man/man3/System::Info::Windows.3pm.gz
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jun 27 16:47
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/System
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 Jun 27 16:47
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/System/Info
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3702 May 12 14:12
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/System/Info.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3296 Feb 28 18:22
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/System/Info/AIX.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2103 Feb 28 18:22
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/System/Info/BSD.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 4397 Feb 28 18:22
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/System/Info/Base.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1478 Feb 28 18:22
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/System/Info/Cygwin.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3334 May 12 12:15
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/System/Info/Darwin.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot  952 Feb 28 18:22
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/System/Info/Generic.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3781 Feb 28 18:22
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/System/Info/HPUX.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1488 Feb 28 18:22
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/System/Info/Haiku.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1885 Feb 28 18:22
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/System/Info/Irix.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot11988 Jun 27 16:47
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/System/Info/Linux.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 

[Bug 1465494] Review Request: perl-System-Info - Factory for system specific information objects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465494

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1465494] Review Request: perl-System-Info - Factory for system specific information objects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465494

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1450709




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450709
[Bug 1450709] perl-Test-Smoke-1.71 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 1465494] New: Review Request: perl-System-Info - Factory for system specific information objects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465494

Bug ID: 1465494
   Summary: Review Request: perl-System-Info - Factory for system
specific information objects
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jples...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-System-Info/perl-System-Info.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jplesnik.fedorapeople.org/perl-System-Info/perl-System-Info-0.055-1.fc27.src.rpm

Description:
System::Info tries to present system-related information, like number of
CPU's, architecture, OS and release related information in a system-
independent way. This releases the user of this module of the need to know
if the information comes from Windows, Linux, HP-UX, AIX, Solaris, Irix, or
VMS, and if the architecture is i386, x64, pa-risc2, or arm.

Fedora Account System Username: jples...@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 1465335] Review Request: python-asn1crypto - Fast Python ASN.1 parser and serializer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465335

Nathaniel McCallum  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Nathaniel McCallum  ---
Everything looks good to me. However, you should contact upstream and propose
that they distribute the license as a separate file (or perhaps even submit a
PR with the license file).

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

[Bug 1465335] Review Request: python-asn1crypto - Fast Python ASN.1 parser and serializer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465335



--- Comment #1 from Nathaniel McCallum  ---
Package Review
==

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

= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[?]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

= EXTRA items =

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is 

[Bug 1250025] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250025



--- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/rocksdb

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

Jakub Kadlčík  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jkadl...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #10 from Jakub Kadlčík  ---
Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: %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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

= EXTRA items =

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
 

[Bug 1439894] Review Request: ddiskit - tool for building Driver Update Disk modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1439894

Zdenek Dohnal  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #17 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
All good, I give review+

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "GPL (v3)", "Unknown or generated". 15 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/zdohnal/repo_upstream/ddiskit/review-ddiskit/licensecheck.txt
[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
 Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, 

[Bug 1439894] Review Request: ddiskit - tool for building Driver Update Disk modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1439894



--- Comment #16 from Zdenek Dohnal  ---
$ rpmlint -v ddiskit-3.5-1.fc27.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings

$ rpmlint -iv ddiskit-3.5-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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 1250025] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250025

Matej Mužila  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|msch...@redhat.com  |acari...@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 1250025] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250025

Augusto Caringi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo+   |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 1465335] Review Request: python-asn1crypto - Fast Python ASN.1 parser and serializer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465335

Nathaniel McCallum  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1465443] Review Request: php-endroid-qrcode - Endroid QR Code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465443



--- Comment #2 from Remi Collet  ---
Version 1.9.3 provided for roundcubemail as composer.json states:

"endroid/qrcode": "~1.6.5"

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

[Bug 1465313] Review Request: php-bacon-qr-code - QR code generator for PHP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465313

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|1410963 |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410963
[Bug 1410963] roundcubemail-1.3.0 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 1465291] Review Request: php-myclabs-php-enum - PHP Enum implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465291

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|1410963 |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410963
[Bug 1410963] roundcubemail-1.3.0 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 1465443] Review Request: php-endroid-qrcode - Endroid QR Code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465443

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1410963
  Alias||endroid/qrcode



--- Comment #1 from Remi Collet  ---
New dependency of roundcubemail

Despite I have some compatibility stuff in the spec for rhel 6, I don't plan to
import this package in EPEL-6 (at least PHP > 5.4 not available).


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410963
[Bug 1410963] roundcubemail-1.3.0 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 1465443] New: Review Request: php-endroid-qrcode - Endroid QR Code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465443

Bug ID: 1465443
   Summary: Review Request: php-endroid-qrcode - Endroid QR Code
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/endroid/php-endroid-qrcode.git/plain/php-endroid-qrcode.spec?id=c3f3395d61d6bcc8343a9aa95086a6ed63daab2f
SRPM URL:
http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-endroid-qrcode-1.9.3-1.remi.src.rpm
Description: 
This library based on QRcode Perl CGI & PHP scripts by Y. Swetake
helps you generate images containing a QR code.

Autoloader: /usr/share/php/Endroid/QrCode/autoload.php



Fedora Account System Username: remi

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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 #9 from cl...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #8)
> Is there a reason you're not using the perl() Provides for the Requires of
> Perl modules? Those are preferred over using the Perl module package names,
> given the propensity for modules to move around...

Thanks. Fixed here:

Spec URL: http://clime.cz/copr-rpmbuild.spec
SRPM URL: http://clime.cz/copr-rpmbuild-0.5-1.fc25.src.rpm

Hopefully, you won't hit browser cache as I just did.

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

[Bug 1250025] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250025

Augusto Caringi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #9 from Augusto Caringi  ---
(In reply to Matej Mužila from comment #8)
> Hi,
> 
> I have a few comments to the pakcage review.
> 
> MUST:
> - Bundled gtest is removed before compilation so it shouldn't be a
> problem.
> (rocksdb.spec:35rm -rf third-party/gtest-1.7.0)
> 
> - fbson doesn't seem to be released separately. Facebook just bundles
> it into its projects.
> 
> SHOULD:
> - Yes, new versions are released very often. At the time of submitting
> rocksdb package for review, the highiest available version was
> packaged.
> - Package can be built on all supported architectures [1]. It was not
> intended to be added to fedora < f26.
> - The Makefile bug (use of parallel jobs) was already fixed by upstream
> so we do not need to fix it downstream.
> 
> 
> Could you please reconsider the package review?

For me it's ok... Just suggestions.

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

[Bug 1465396] Review Request: heaptrack - A heap memory profiler for Linux

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465396

Daniel Vrátil  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||656997 (kde-reviews)
  Alias||heaptrack




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656997
[Bug 656997] kde-related package review tracker
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1465396] New: Review Request: heaptrack - A heap memory profiler for Linux

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465396

Bug ID: 1465396
   Summary: Review Request: heaptrack - A heap memory profiler for
Linux
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: m...@dvratil.cz
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://dvratil.fedorapeople.org/spec/heaptrack.spec
SRPM URL: https://dvratil.fedorapeople.org/spec/heaptrack-1.0.0-1.fc25.src.rpm
Description: Heaptrack traces all memory allocations and annotates these events
with stack traces.
Fedora Account System Username: dvratil
Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20205451

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

[Bug 1463082] Review Request: python-pocketlint - Support for running pylint against projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1463082



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pocketlint-0.15-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-8ce8e10468

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

[Bug 1463082] Review Request: python-pocketlint - Support for running pylint against projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1463082

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |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 1439894] Review Request: ddiskit - tool for building Driver Update Disk modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1439894

Petr Oros  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(po...@redhat.com) |
   |needinfo?(e...@redhat.com)  |



--- Comment #15 from Petr Oros  ---
Ddiskit is tool written in python.
I updated setup and i hope, now it will be ok.
Please check latest version ddiskit-3.5

Thanks,
-Petr

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

[Bug 1462412] Review Request: tworld - a puzzle game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462412

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 1462412] Review Request: tworld - a puzzle game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462412



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
tworld-1.3.2-3.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b66f4ca0b3

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

[Bug 1250025] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250025

Matej Mužila  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #8 from Matej Mužila  ---
Hi,

I have a few comments to the pakcage review.

MUST:
- Bundled gtest is removed before compilation so it shouldn't be a problem.
(rocksdb.spec:35rm -rf third-party/gtest-1.7.0)

- fbson doesn't seem to be released separately. Facebook just bundles
it into its projects.

SHOULD:
- Yes, new versions are released very often. At the time of submitting
rocksdb package for review, the highiest available version was
packaged.
- Package can be built on all supported architectures [1]. It was not
intended to be added to fedora < f26.
- The Makefile bug (use of parallel jobs) was already fixed by upstream
so we do not need to fix it downstream.


Could you please reconsider the package review?

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures

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

[Bug 1465335] New: Review Request: python-asn1crypto - Fast Python ASN.1 parser and serializer

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465335

Bug ID: 1465335
   Summary: Review Request: python-asn1crypto - Fast Python ASN.1
parser and serializer
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: chei...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/~cheimes/python-asn1crypto/python-asn1crypto.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/~cheimes/python-asn1crypto/python-asn1crypto-0.22.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
Description: Fast ASN.1 parser and serializer with definitions for private
keys, public keys, certificates, CRL, OCSP, CMS, PKCS#3, PKCS#7, PKCS#8,
PKCS#12, PKCS#5, X.509 and TSP.
Fedora Account System Username: cheimes

asn1crypto is a new dependency for python-cryptography 1.8.0,
https://cryptography.readthedocs.io/en/latest/changelog/#id4

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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 #12 from cl...@redhat.com ---
Done.

Spec URL: http://clime.cz/rpkg-client.spec
SRPM URL: http://clime.cz/rpkg-client-0.5-1.fc25.src.rpm

I needed to move the configuration file out of /etc/rpkg and place it directly
in /etc/ (that is /etc/rpkg.conf) because /etc/rpkg is already owned by fedpkg.

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

[Bug 1250025] Review Request: rocksdb - A Persistent Key-Value Store for Flash and RAM Storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250025



--- Comment #7 from Augusto Caringi  ---
Package Review
==

MUST
* Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
  There are 2 third-party libraries in the source tarball: gtest and fbson
  gtest is probably only needed for tests and is being removed in %prep.
  fbson is used (It's a C++ header-only library), just to mention because
  I think that there isn't much we can do about it.

SHOULD
* Latest version is packaged: Upstream seems to be very active and is releasing
  very often, the latest version is 5.4.6
(https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/releases).
* Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
  architectures: On F25 i686 gcc hangs during compilation (maybe a bug in gcc),
  On F26 i686 and F27 i686 the compilation is successful.
* %check is present and all tests pass: There is a test suite, but 'make check'
  needs recompilation in debug mode.
* Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock: Yes, except for
  F25 i686 (compilation hangs)
* Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro:  Yes, but this option has no effect
  due to a problem in the Makefile (Explanation in a previous comment).


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]: 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: "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated",
 "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 1072 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/acaringi/reviews/1250025-rocksdb/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
 There are 2 thirdy-party libraries in the source tarball: gtest and fbson
 gtest is probably only needed for tests and are being removed in spec
file.
 fbson is used (It's a C++ header-only library)
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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 

[Bug 1426243] Review Request: MediathekView - Searches the online media library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426243
Bug 1426243 depends on bug 1438673, which changed state.

Bug 1438673 Summary: Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform 
for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1421366] Review Request: MSearch - Mandatory library for MediathekView

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421366
Bug 1421366 depends on bug 1438673, which changed state.

Bug 1438673 Summary: Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform 
for Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1438673] Review Request: openjfx - Rich client application platform for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673

Jonny Heggheim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed|2017-06-02 13:40:25 |2017-06-27 03:52:28



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

[Bug 1339227] Review Request: fileobj - Hex Editor written in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339227

Yatin Karel  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||yka...@redhat.com



--- Comment #2 from Yatin Karel  ---
This is an un-official review.

Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
  in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
  for the package is included in %license.
  Note: License file license.cpython-35.opt-1.pyc is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- Package is not named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
  Check for naming python packages:
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging:NamingGuidelines
- Provides is missing
  check:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#The_.25python_provide_macro
  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.
- Package runs this command in %install section
  rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- Following code looks unnecessary to me as "with python3" or "without python3
is not used in spec:-
  %if 0%{?fedora}
  %bcond_without python3
  %else
  %bcond_with python3
  %endif
- It would be good to Split buildrequires in seperate lines


= 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 (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
 (unspecified)". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/ykarel/work/fedora-
 reviews/1339227-fileobj/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Check for naming python packages:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging:NamingGuidelines
[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.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: 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 51200 bytes in 4 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
Package runs this command
[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 

[Bug 1465313] New: Review Request: php-bacon-qr-code - QR code generator for PHP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465313

Bug ID: 1465313
   Summary: Review Request: php-bacon-qr-code - QR code generator
for PHP
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/bacon/php-bacon-qr-code.git/plain/php-bacon-qr-code.spec?id=a782099d313044e816067a0b805b3beb222d9578
SRPM URL: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-bacon-qr-code-1.0.1-1.remi.src.rpm
Description: 
BaconQrCode is a port of QR code portion of the ZXing library.
It currently only features the encoder part, but could later
receive the decoder part as well.

As the Reed Solomon codec implementation of the ZXing library
performs quite slow in PHP, it was exchanged with the implementation
by Phil Karn.

Autoloader: /usr/share/php/BaconQrCode/autoload.php


Fedora Account System Username: remi

--

New dependency of roundcubemail

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

[Bug 1465313] Review Request: php-bacon-qr-code - QR code generator for PHP

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465313

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1410963
  Alias||bacon/bacon-qr-code




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410963
[Bug 1410963] roundcubemail-1.3.0 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 1465291] Review Request: php-myclabs-php-enum - PHP Enum implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465291

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1410963




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1410963
[Bug 1410963] roundcubemail-1.3.0 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 1465291] Review Request: php-myclabs-php-enum - PHP Enum implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465291

Remi Collet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Alias||myclabs/php-enum



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

[Bug 1465291] New: Review Request: php-myclabs-php-enum - PHP Enum implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465291

Bug ID: 1465291
   Summary: Review Request: php-myclabs-php-enum - PHP Enum
implementation
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/myclabs/php-myclabs-php-enum.git/plain/php-myclabs-php-enum.spec?id=59287ce7c13922b93c124c0f27d5d115e3226fa8
SRPM URL:
http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-myclabs-php-enum-1.5.1-1.remi.src.rpm
Description: 
PHP Enum implementation inspired from SplEnum.

Autoloader: /usr/share/php/MyCLabs/Enum/autoload.php


Fedora Account System Username: remi


--

New dependency of roundcubemail

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