[Bug 1474930] Review Request: python-webencodings - Character encoding for the web

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474930

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-webencodings-0.5.1-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b766162f16

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

[Bug 1475536] Review Request: python-pygments2 - Syntax highlighting engine written in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475536

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa  ---
Review notes:

* Package follows Python packaging guidelines
* Package follows extended guidelines for EPEL
* Package is named to differentiate from the base package
* Package generates no conflicts, binaries are renamed to not conflict
* License file is installed as %license
* No rpmlint errors
* No notable issues from fedora-review

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 1475536] Review Request: python-pygments2 - Syntax highlighting engine written in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475536

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 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 1268703] Review Request: rubygem-powerpack - A few useful extensions to core Ruby classes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268703

Roman Joost  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Roman Joost  ---
Approved. Good work!

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

[Bug 1268703] Review Request: rubygem-powerpack - A few useful extensions to core Ruby classes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268703



--- Comment #2 from Roman Joost  ---
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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 63 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/rjoost/tmp/1268703-rubygem-powerpack/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
 /usr/share/gems/doc
[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.
[-]: 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: 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 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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
 Note: Package contains font files
[-]: 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 rubygem-
 powerpack-doc
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: 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]: 

[Bug 1268703] Review Request: rubygem-powerpack - A few useful extensions to core Ruby classes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268703

Roman Joost  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||rjo...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rjo...@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 1460917] Review Request: rpkg - Command-line client tool to DistGit

[bugzilla]

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-07-26 18:52:17



--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System  ---
rpkg-client-0.6-1.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 1475564] New: Review Request: python-pytest-fixture-config - Simple configuration objects for Py.test fixtures

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475564

Bug ID: 1475564
   Summary: Review Request: python-pytest-fixture-config - Simple
configuration objects for Py.test fixtures
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ke...@scrye.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/review/python-pytest-fixture-config/python-pytest-fixture-config.spec
SRPM URL:
https://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/review/python-pytest-fixture-config/python-pytest-fixture-config-1.2.11-1.fc27.src.rpm
Description: Simple configuration objects for Py.test fixtures
Fedora Account System Username: kevin

rpmlint says:
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

koji scratch build:
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

This package is needed for python-setuptools tests.

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

[Bug 1475536] New: Review Request: python-pygments2 - Syntax highlighting engine written in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475536

Bug ID: 1475536
   Summary: Review Request: python-pygments2 - Syntax highlighting
engine written in Python
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ignate...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pygments2.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pygments2-2.2.0-1.el7.centos.src.rpm
Description:
Pygments is a generic syntax highlighter for general use in all kinds
of software such as forum systems, wikis or other applications that
need to prettify source code. Highlights are:

  * a wide range of common languages and markup formats is supported
  * special attention is paid to details that increase highlighting
quality
  * support for new languages and formats are added easily; most
languages use a simple regex-based lexing mechanism
  * a number of output formats is available, among them HTML, RTF,
LaTeX and ANSI sequences
  * it is usable as a command-line tool and as a library
  * ... and it highlights even Brainf*ck!
Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain

P.S. note that this package is EPEL7 only and primary use-case is having some
modern version of pygments for pagure.

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

[Bug 1473543] Review Request: python-ansicolors - ANSI colors support for python print output

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473543

Nikola Forró  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



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

[Bug 1475035] Review Request: python-pyxs - Pure Python bindings to XenStore

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475035



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-pyxs-0.4.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-ccd9d17ed6

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

[Bug 1475035] Review Request: python-pyxs - Pure Python bindings to XenStore

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475035

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 1464194] Review Request: Framework dependency package for supporting ixpdimm_sw which installs the CLI , CIM and the I18N frameworks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1464194

Rutvij Karkhanis  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)




Referenced Bugs:

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

[Bug 1460759] Review Request: python-daiquiri - Library to configure Python logging easily

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460759



--- Comment #5 from Pradeep Kilambi  ---
Here is updated spec and src:

SPEC: https://pkilambi.fedorapeople.org/python-daiquiri/python-daiquiri.spec
SRPM:
https://pkilambi.fedorapeople.org/python-daiquiri/python-daiquiri-1.2.1-1.fc26.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1475483] Review Request: qbs - Cross platform build tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475483

Sandro Mani  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1466775




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466775
[Bug 1466775] qt-creator-v4.4.0-beta1 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 1475483] New: Review Request: qbs - Cross platform build tool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475483

Bug ID: 1475483
   Summary: Review Request: qbs - Cross platform build tool
   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/qbs.spec
SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/qbs-1.8.1-1.fc27.src.rpm
Description: Cross platform build tool
Fedora Account System Username: smani

This package used to be built out of the qt-creator SRPM, but upstream notified
me that this is the wrong approach, in particular the version should not be the
one of qt-creator, but the actual qbs version (which is currently 1.8.1, hence
the epoch bump to obsolete the qbs using the qt-creator version, currently
4.3.2).

Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20772211

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

[Bug 1460759] Review Request: python-daiquiri - Library to configure Python logging easily

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460759



--- Comment #4 from Pradeep Kilambi  ---
Thanks Alfredo, i will rebase this to 1.2.1.

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

[Bug 1475228] Review Request: tpm2-abrmd - TPM2 access broker and resource manager daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475228

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Hello,

A couple of points first:

 - Systemd service files should be installed in %{_unitdir}. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd#Filesystem_locations

 - Systemd service files also need specific scriptlets. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets?rd=Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd

 - GCC is not needed as a BuildRequire. See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2

 - why do you define %global pkg_prefix tpm2-abrmd instead of using %{name} ?

 - you can replace ./bootstrap with "autoreconf -vif" in %build

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

[Bug 1474948] Review Request: compat-tracker1 - Compatibility package with the tracker client-side libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474948



--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/compat-tracker1

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

[Bug 1475035] Review Request: python-pyxs - Pure Python bindings to XenStore

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475035



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-pyxs

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

[Bug 1474948] Review Request: compat-tracker1 - Compatibility package with the tracker client-side libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474948



--- Comment #3 from Debarshi Ray  ---
(In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #2)

Thanks for the review!

> Just two minor things I'd change:
> 
> 1) add '%dir %{_libdir}/girepository-1.0' to %files so that the directory
> gets properly removed when the package is uninstalled
> 2) compat-tracker018 and compat-tracker016 obsoletes semantically belong to
> tracker and not here, I think. Removing these would also conveniently fix
> the rpmlint warning above.

Makes sense. I have changed those.

Spec:
https://rishi.fedorapeople.org/compat-tracker1.spec

SRPM:
https://rishi.fedorapeople.org/compat-tracker1-1.12.1-2.fc25.src.rpm

Scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20764897

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

[Bug 1474694] Review Request: libcbor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474694

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Hello,

A few notes regarding your SPEC:

- SOURCE0 should point to the URL of the archive. For example in your case,
 SOURCE0:
https://github.com/PJK/libcbor/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/${name}-%{version}.tar.gz

 - you can use rpm macros for cp and mkdir -p:
   - cp → %{__cp}
   - mkdir -p → %{__mkdir_p}

 - %setup -q is fine but note that you can also use %autosetup . It patches the
source automatically if you ever need patch.

 - I would put the %cmake macro in %build, not %prep 

 - These BR are not needed: gcc gcc-c++
   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2

 - I would repeat you short description in the -devel package too:

"libcbor is a C library for parsing and generating CBOR.

The %{name}-devel contains libraries and header files for %{name}."

 - The "Group:" tag should not be used. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections

Thank you

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

[Bug 1120788] Review Request: Rex - Tool for Automation, Remote Execution and Configuration Deployment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120788



--- Comment #10 from Robin Lee  ---
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.
[!]: 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.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Artistic", "Unknown or generated". 433 files
 have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/cheese/Downloads/1120788-Rex/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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
 Note: %makeinstall used in %install section
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 You should BuildRequires perl-generators and perl-interpreter.
 Please refer to:
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl?rd=Packaging/Perl
[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 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

Perl:
[!]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
 Note: Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`";
 echo $version)) missing?
 Note: You should use %perl_vendorlib to specify the module path.

= 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not 

[Bug 1473320] Review Request: vkmark - Vulkan benchmarking suite

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473320



--- Comment #15 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/vkmark

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

[Bug 1474948] Review Request: compat-tracker1 - Compatibility package with the tracker client-side libraries

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474948

Kalev Lember  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 from Kalev Lember  ---
Fedora review compat-tracker1-1.12.1-1.fc25.src.rpm 2017-07-26

$ rpmlint compat-tracker1-1.12.1-1.fc25.src.rpm \
  compat-tracker1-1.12.1-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm \
  compat-tracker1-debuginfo-1.12.1-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
compat-tracker1.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided compat-tracker016
compat-tracker1.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided compat-tracker018
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

+ OK
! needs attention

+ rpmlint warnings are harmless and can be ignored
+ The package is named according to Fedora packaging guidelines
+ The spec file name matches the base package name.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
  Licensing Guidelines.
+ The license field in the spec file matches the actual license
+ The license text (COPYING) is included in %license
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Upstream sources match the sources in the srpm
 
a99bc07515d74e2a3b578ddba061060566aad00d8d9579fb726105db66da5374b40222dc23e7323b244a595c856ddb3b6c7ccc6be1a13cbb8669f93d0afd8b59
 tracker-1.12.1.tar.xz
 
a99bc07515d74e2a3b578ddba061060566aad00d8d9579fb726105db66da5374b40222dc23e7323b244a595c856ddb3b6c7ccc6be1a13cbb8669f93d0afd8b59
 Download/tracker-1.12.1.tar.xz
+ The package builds in koji
(https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20725596)
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires look sane
n/a locale handling
+ ldconfig in %post and %postun
+ Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
n/a Package isn't relocatable
! Package owns all the directories it creates

  %{_libdir}/girepository-1.0 directory is missing from %files (it's also a
problem in the tracker where this was copied from).

+ No duplicate files in %files
+ Permissions are properly set
+ Consistent use of macros
+ The package must contain code or permissible content
n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ Files marked %doc should not affect the runtime of application
n/a Static libraries should be in -static
n/a Development files should be in -devel
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
+ Packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a Proper .desktop file handling
+ Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages
+ Filenames are valid UTF-8

Just two minor things I'd change:

1) add '%dir %{_libdir}/girepository-1.0' to %files so that the directory gets
properly removed when the package is uninstalled
2) compat-tracker018 and compat-tracker016 obsoletes semantically belong to
tracker and not here, I think. Removing these would also conveniently fix the
rpmlint warning above.

Beyond that, looks nice 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 1467003] Review Request: libgpiod - C library and tools for interacting with linux GPIO char device

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467003



--- Comment #7 from Vitaly Zaitsev  ---
> Do all of those work on EL7 for example?

Yes, on EPEL7 it will work fine.

> They can be replaced, but the others are generally more widely supported and 
> it's really just superficial, it doesn't particularly provide any real 
> benefit.

You should use more rpm macros where possible.

> Fixed locally. Anything else?

Update SPEC and SRPM and I will check it again via automated rpmreview tool.

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

[Bug 1473320] Review Request: vkmark - Vulkan benchmarking suite

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473320

c72...@yahoo.de changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #14 from c72...@yahoo.de ---
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 1473320] Review Request: vkmark - Vulkan benchmarking suite

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473320



--- Comment #13 from c72...@yahoo.de ---
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]: 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]: 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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
 generated". 35 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/makerpm/fedora-
 review/1473320-vkmark/licensecheck.txt
[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]: %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.
[-]: 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.
[!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
   # ExcludeArch: s390x. Some tests fail on s390x. Comments are in spec file
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in vkmark-
 debuginfo
[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 

[Bug 1468971] Review Request: freshmaker - A service scheduling rebuilds of artifacts as new content becomes available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468971



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

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

[Bug 1466844] Review Request: modtools - Utilities for creating and managing modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466844

Gwyn Ciesla  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Ugh, pkgdb error, sorry I missed it.  I've fixed it.

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

[Bug 1467003] Review Request: libgpiod - C library and tools for interacting with linux GPIO char device

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467003



--- Comment #6 from Peter Robinson  ---
(In reply to Vitaly Zaitsev from comment #4)
> > License: LGPLv2
> 
> Must be replaced to License: LGPLv2+.

Fixed locally. Anything else?

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

[Bug 1467003] Review Request: libgpiod - C library and tools for interacting with linux GPIO char device

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467003



--- Comment #5 from Peter Robinson  ---
(In reply to Vitaly Zaitsev from comment #3)
> > %setup -q
> 
> Can be replaced to %autosetup. Also you should add BuildRequires: gcc.
> 
> > make %{?_smp_mflags} V=1
> 
> Should be replaced to %make_build.
> 
> > make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} INSTALL='install -p'
> 
> Should be replaced to %make_install.

Do all of those work on EL7 for example? They can be replaced, but the others
are generally more widely supported and it's really just superficial, it
doesn't particularly provide any real benefit.

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

[Bug 1451407] Review Request: annobin - a gcc plugin to record extra information in compiled files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1451407



--- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/annobin

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

[Bug 1474694] Review Request: libcbor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474694



--- Comment #3 from Mark  ---
Spec URL: https://pagure.io/libcbor_review/raw/master/f/libcbor.spec
SRPM URL:
https://pagure.io/libcbor_review/raw/master/f/libcbor-0.5.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
Description: Libcbor is a C library for parsing and generating CBOR, the
general-purpose schema-less binary data format.
Fedora Account System Username: mtamasko

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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 #45 from Charalampos Stratakis  ---
Hello Vincent and thanks for your work and your patience with the package
review.

Technically all seems fine now. The package builds and works as expected.

[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.

[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.

Just one last item on the list. Please add a comment above the license tag with
a small explanation of the licenses breakdown [0]. Also please mention there
that the CC-BY-SA is for the documentation subpackage that hasn't been
built/shipped yet.

[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.

[0]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios

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

[Bug 1474694] Review Request: libcbor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474694

Jiří Vymazal  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jvyma...@redhat.com
Version|26  |rawhide



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

[Bug 1420336] Review Request: libcbor - CBOR protocol implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1420336

Jiří Vymazal  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Last Closed||2017-07-26 07:39:54



--- Comment #1 from Jiří Vymazal  ---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1474694 ***

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

[Bug 1474694] Review Request: libcbor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474694



--- Comment #2 from Jiří Vymazal  ---
*** Bug 1420336 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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

[Bug 1473543] Review Request: python-ansicolors - ANSI colors support for python print output

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473543



--- Comment #6 from Sebastian Kisela  ---
(In reply to Sebastian Kisela from comment #5)
> Thanks!
> 
> > Everything looks fine, just update summary and description as discussed and
> > I will set fedora-review+.
> 
> Updated specfile URL (with related SRPM) below.
> 
> Spec URL:
> https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/skisela/python-ansicolors/
> fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00582274-python-ansicolors/python-ansicolors.spec
> SRPM URL:
> https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/skisela/python-ansicolors/
> fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00582274-python-ansicolors/python-ansicolors-1.1.8-1.
> fc27.src.rpm(In reply to Nikola Forró from comment #4)

One more modification - deleted %{pkgname} macro from description.

Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/skisela/python-ansicolors/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00583661-python-ansicolors/python-ansicolors.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/skisela/python-ansicolors/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00583661-python-ansicolors/python-ansicolors-1.1.8-1.fc27.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 1473320] Review Request: vkmark - Vulkan benchmarking suite

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473320



--- Comment #12 from Yanko Kaneti  ---
Right, should have probably said "mesa has no vulkan drivers on s390x"

I am not seeing myself investigating the s390x test failures anytime soon. So
its either ExcludeArch, or someone could peruse the current spec and push this
further in a different review ticket.

Thanks for your efforts so far.

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

[Bug 1473320] Review Request: vkmark - Vulkan benchmarking suite

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473320



--- Comment #11 from c72...@yahoo.de ---
Thanks for the update.

It is a few tests, which are failing on s390x
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5948/20755948/build.log
test cases:  14 |  13 passed | 1 failed
assertions: 176 | 173 passed | 3 failed

Further investigations concerning s390x make sense. Maybe together with
upstream. Alternatively, (some failing) tests could be excluded for now for
s390x.

vulkan is available for s390x
See e.g.: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5948/20755948/root.log

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

[Bug 1473320] Review Request: vkmark - Vulkan benchmarking suite

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473320



--- Comment #10 from Yanko Kaneti  ---
2017.07-0.5.20170725gitaa0de26
- ExcludeArch s390x for now

SPEC: http://declera.com/~yaneti/vkmark/vkmark.spec
SRPM:
http://declera.com/~yaneti/vkmark/vkmark-2017.07-0.5.20170725gitaa0de26.fc27.src.rpm


As the comment says
+# Tests fail on s390x
+# Since s390x has no vulkan anyway exclude for now
+ExcludeArch:s390x

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

[Bug 1419330] Review Request: deepin-menu - deepin menu service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419330



--- Comment #15 from Robin Lee  ---
License tag and latest changelog entry are not fixed.

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

[Bug 1419330] Review Request: deepin-menu - deepin menu service

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1419330



--- Comment #14 from sensor@gmail.com ---
SPEC: 
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mosquito/deepin/fedora-25-x86_64/00583646-deepin-menu/deepin-menu.spec
SRPM: 
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mosquito/deepin/fedora-25-x86_64/00583646-deepin-menu/deepin-menu-3.1.5-1.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 1475035] Review Request: python-pyxs - Pure Python bindings to XenStore

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475035

Robin Lee  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Robin Lee  ---
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: "BSD (unspecified)", "GPL (v3)", "Unknown or generated". 32
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/cheese/Downloads/1475035-python-pyxs/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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.
[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]: 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 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

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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 python2-pyxs , python3-pyxs
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations 

[Bug 1473320] Review Request: vkmark - Vulkan benchmarking suite

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473320



--- Comment #9 from Yanko Kaneti  ---
2017.07-0.4.20170725gitaa0de26
- Vulkan backend only available on x86_64, condition the mesa-vulkan-devel

SPEC: http://declera.com/~yaneti/vkmark/vkmark.spec
SRPM:
http://declera.com/~yaneti/vkmark/vkmark-2017.07-0.4.20170725gitaa0de26.fc27.src.rpm


I am not sure if it has a purpose on vulkan-less architectures but at least it
builds.

With the exception of s390x which maybe someone could investigate more

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20755931

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

[Bug 1474694] Review Request: libcbor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474694



--- Comment #1 from Radovan Sroka  ---
Link to repo is not sufficient. 

Your comment should contain at least:

...
Spec URL: 
SRPM URL: 
Description: 
Fedora Account System Username: 
...

fedora-review tool needs to parse those fields.
After each update you need to provide new URLs in last comment.

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

[Bug 1473320] Review Request: vkmark - Vulkan benchmarking suite

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473320



--- Comment #8 from c72...@yahoo.de ---
mesa-vulkan-devel is only available for x86_64.
See results of Koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20753589

This means, that other architectures have to be excluded using ExcludeArch.
See "Architecture Build Failures"
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines on how to handle this.

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

[Bug 1474694] Review Request: libcbor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474694

Radovan Sroka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rsr...@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 1475228] Review Request: tpm2-abrmd - TPM2 access broker and resource manager daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475228



--- Comment #1 from Yunying Sun  ---
Upstream repository: https://github.com/01org/tpm2-abrmd

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

[Bug 1475228] New: Review Request: tpm2-abrmd - TPM2 access broker and resource manager daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475228

Bug ID: 1475228
   Summary: Review Request: tpm2-abrmd - TPM2 access broker and
resource manager daemon
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: yunying@intel.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/yunyings/share/master/tpm2-abrmd.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/yunyings/share/raw/master/tpm2-abrmd-1.1.0-1.el7.src.rpm

Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20749893


Description: 
tpm2-abrmd is a system daemon implementing the TPM2 access broker (TAB) &
Resource Manager (RM) spec from the TCG.

Fedora Account System Username: yunyings

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

[Bug 1475035] Review Request: python-pyxs - Pure Python bindings to XenStore

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475035

Robin Lee  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||robinlee.s...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|robinlee.s...@gmail.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 1427634] Review Request: syncthing - Continuous File Synchronization

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #17 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Updated .spec and SRPM files (with a rebased patch for the build script) for
the newest 0.14.33 upstream release:

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

SRPM URL:
https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/syncthing-0.14.33-1.fc26.src.rpm

successful COPR build for f24, f25, f26, rawhide, with all missing dependencies
 present:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/decathorpe/golang-staging/build/583592/


Comments on rpmlint error output of SRPM and RPMs:

- 3 x E: hardcoded-library-path in */usr/lib/systemd/user-preset

I can't fix this, because systemd's RPM macros don't provide a
%{_userpresetdir} analog to %{_presetdir}.

- E: useless-provides debuginfo(build-id)
- E: debuginfo-without-sources

I think this is intentional (.go sources can't even be utilized for debugging
go binaries). In any case, RPM is generating the -debuginfo package itself ...

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

[Bug 1466844] Review Request: modtools - Utilities for creating and managing modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1466844

dhodo...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||limburg...@gmail.com
  Flags||needinfo?(limburgher@gmail.
   ||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 1473320] Review Request: vkmark - Vulkan benchmarking suite

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473320

c72...@yahoo.de changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|c72...@yahoo.de
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #7 from c72...@yahoo.de ---
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 1473320] Review Request: vkmark - Vulkan benchmarking suite

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473320



--- Comment #6 from Yanko Kaneti  ---
2017.07-0.3.20170725gitaa0de26
- Add %%check, running the meson tests, as per review (#1473320)

http://declera.com/~yaneti/vkmark/vkmark.spec
http://declera.com/~yaneti/vkmark/vkmark-2017.07-0.3.20170725gitaa0de26.fc27.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 1473543] Review Request: python-ansicolors - ANSI colors support for python print output

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473543



--- Comment #5 from Sebastian Kisela  ---
Thanks!

> Everything looks fine, just update summary and description as discussed and
> I will set fedora-review+.

Updated specfile URL (with related SRPM) below.

Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/skisela/python-ansicolors/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00582274-python-ansicolors/python-ansicolors.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/skisela/python-ansicolors/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00582274-python-ansicolors/python-ansicolors-1.1.8-1.fc27.src.rpm(In
reply to Nikola Forró from comment #4)

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

[Bug 1473320] Review Request: vkmark - Vulkan benchmarking suite

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473320



--- Comment #5 from c72...@yahoo.de ---
vkmark includes tests. Could you please include them in the %check section of
the spec file.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25check_section

Tests are here after building:
tests/vkmark-tests

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

[Bug 1468545] Review Request: rust-packaging - RPM macros for building Rust packages on various architectures

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468545

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1475132




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475132
[Bug 1475132] Packaging Rust applications/libraries
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1463429] Review Request: rust-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Rust source packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1463429

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1475132




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475132
[Bug 1475132] Packaging Rust applications/libraries
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org