[Bug 1336168] Review Request: git-lfs - Git extension for versioning large files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336168



--- Comment #11 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
Here's an updated build spec:

Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/qulogic/git-lfs/fedora-26-x86_64/00584845-git-lfs/git-lfs.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/qulogic/git-lfs/fedora-26-x86_64/00584845-git-lfs/git-lfs-2.2.1-1.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 1476440] Review Request: gimp-luminosity-masks - Luminosity mask channels plug-in for Gimp

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476440



--- Comment #7 from Luya Tshimbalanga  ---
(In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #6)
> Great, everything checks out.
> 
> Package is APPROVED.

Thank you for the quick review, Alexander!

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

[Bug 1476481] Review Request: perl-AWS-Signature4 - Perl module for creating a version4 signature for Amazon Web Services

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476481



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-AWS-Signature4

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

[Bug 1421047] Review Request: deepin-tool-kit - Base development tool of all C++/ Qt Developer work on Deepin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421047



--- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/deepin-tool-kit

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

[Bug 1476440] Review Request: gimp-luminosity-masks - Luminosity mask channels plug-in for Gimp

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476440

Alexander Ploumistos  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #6 from Alexander Ploumistos  ---
Great, everything checks out.

Package is APPROVED.

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

[Bug 1476440] Review Request: gimp-luminosity-masks - Luminosity mask channels plug-in for Gimp

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476440



--- Comment #5 from Luya Tshimbalanga  ---
Fixed.

Updated files
Spec URL:
https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/gimp-luminosity-masks.spec
SRPM URL:
https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/gimp-luminosity-masks-0-3.fc26.src.rpm

Scratch build result:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20894465

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

[Bug 1476440] Review Request: gimp-luminosity-masks - Luminosity mask channels plug-in for Gimp

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476440



--- Comment #4 from Alexander Ploumistos  ---
It took me a while to figure out why mock and koji builds failed on every
fedora version, but you forgot to modify your %license section (or rename the
license text 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 1476481] Review Request: perl-AWS-Signature4 - Perl module for creating a version4 signature for Amazon Web Services

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476481



--- Comment #2 from Dominic Hopf  ---
Thanks very much for taking care of this and Robin! That was quite fast. :-)

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

[Bug 1476440] Review Request: gimp-luminosity-masks - Luminosity mask channels plug-in for Gimp

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476440



--- Comment #3 from Luya Tshimbalanga  ---
Updated files
Spec URL:
https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/gimp-luminosity-masks.spec
SRPM URL:
https://luya.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/gimp-luminosity-masks-0-2.fc26.src.rpm

Following changes:
1. Uses new appstream guideline. I am planning not to open F24 branch which is
coming EOL anyway.
2. Uses GPLv2+ license according to the codes. To answer the question, the
packaging count as redistribution. 

Thanks for the pointer, I will deal with them.

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

[Bug 1476481] Review Request: perl-AWS-Signature4 - Perl module for creating a version4 signature for Amazon Web Services

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476481

Robin Lee  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  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: "Artistic (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/cheese/Downloads/1476481-perl-AWS-Signature4/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 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: 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]: 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

Perl:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
[x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned.

= 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]: 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, 

[Bug 1476014] Review Request: icemon - Icecream GUI monitor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476014



--- Comment #5 from Jerry James  ---
(In reply to Michael Cullen from comment #4)
> Thanks! I thought I saw something saying the iconcache update wasn't needed
> now but I must have been mistaken.

Well, it's like the other scriptlets that are no longer needed, so I don't know
why this one hasn't been eliminated.  I expect someone will get around that at
some point.

> You didn't mention it, but after taking a look at your review (which I'll
> keep an eye on even though someone else got there before me with comments) I
> was reminded to add gcc-c++ as a BuildRequires - I suspect it's already
> pulled in via qt5-devel but it's probably better to be explicit!

It is, and I should have noticed it was missing.  Shame on me.

There are just two very small issues left.  First, BuildRequires: gzip isn't
necessary.  It is on the Exceptions list and hasn't been superseded by any
other guidelines, unlike the gcc/gcc-c++ case.  Second, the package needs to
have Requires: hicolor-icon-theme, not BuildRequires: hicolor-icon-theme.  This
is to ensure that the icon directories exist at install/run time.  You don't
need them at build time.

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

[Bug 1476481] Review Request: perl-AWS-Signature4 - Perl module for creating a version4 signature for Amazon Web Services

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476481

Robin Lee  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 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 1476085] Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #7 from Jerry James  ---
(In reply to Michael Cullen from comment #5)
> * libsemigroups.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US initialise
> -> initialize
> 
> yeah I know, I'm british too but the package guidelines are for american
> english spellings :-)

Actually, I'm a Yank. :-)  I've gotten into the bad habit of ignoring rpmlint's
complaints about misspelled words, because it is nearly always wrong.  I'll
rededicate myself to looking through the list of words for those rare cases
where it actually finds a misspelled word.

> * libsemigroups.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol
> /usr/lib64/libsemigroups.so.0.0.0 pthread_create
> 
> looks to me like you're missing the -pthread compiler option

Actually, a peek at the build logs show that the -pthread compiler option is
being passed.  Apparently that does not imply linking with -lpthread, at least
for a shared library.  I've forced the issue by hacking up the Makefile to add
-lpthread, which fixes the problem.  Thanks for spotting that!

> I'd agree about the docs going into a separate subpackage

Done.  I also added the standard lines in %build to eliminate hardcoded rpaths.
 New URLs:
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups-0.3.1-1.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 1476085] Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476085



--- Comment #6 from Jerry James  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #4)
> No problem with me. I'm just helping around while hoping for a sponsor.

Have you introduced yourself on fedora-devel list?  What review request(s) have
you submitted?

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

[Bug 1470436] Review Request: astrometry - Blind astrometric calibration of arbitrary astronomical images

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470436

Mattia Verga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mattia.ve...@email.it



--- Comment #4 from Mattia Verga  ---
Thanks for your effort in continuing the process of importing astrometry.net
into Fedora.

I have no free time at the moment to follow a full review, but here are my 2
cents:
- I think would be better asking upstream to rename the conflicting executable
and also some other executables that have too common name and can become a
problem in future. Renaming the executable only here in Fedora can cause
confusion and I think this should be the last chance.
- Patches should be reported upstream
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Patch_Guidelines and the
fact we are not the only distro using them should make the developer more open
to accept them upstream.

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

[Bug 1471806] Review Request: danmaQ - A small client side Qt program to play danmaku on any screen

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1471806



--- Comment #3 from Zamir SUN  ---
Upstream tagged.

Spec URL: https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/danmaQ/
SRPM URL:
https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/danmaQ/danmaQ-0.2-1.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 1476489] New: Review Request: xfce4-statusnotifier-plugin - Panel area status notifier plugin for Xfce4

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476489

Bug ID: 1476489
   Summary: Review Request: xfce4-statusnotifier-plugin - Panel
area status notifier plugin for Xfce4
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: szts...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/xfce4-statusnotifier-plugin/xfce4-statusnotifier-plugin.spec
SRPM URL:
https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/xfce4-statusnotifier-plugin/xfce4-statusnotifier-plugin-0.1.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
Description: Panel area status notifier plugin for Xfce4
Fedora Account System Username: zsun

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

[Bug 1476434] Review Request: Bstrlib - Better String Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476434



--- Comment #3 from Ye Cheng <18969068...@163.com> ---
(In reply to Ye Cheng from comment #0)
Sorry for the inconvenience of switching URLs
> Spec URL: 
No longer valid 
New Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/yecheng/bstrlib/fedora-rawhide-i386/00584721-bstrlib/bstrlib.spec
> SRPM URL: 
No longer valid
New spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/yecheng/bstrlib/fedora-rawhide-i386/00584721-bstrlib/bstrlib.spec

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

[Bug 1476434] Review Request: Bstrlib - Better String Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476434



--- Comment #2 from Ye Cheng <18969068...@163.com> ---
(In reply to Iwicki Artur from comment #1)
> >Release: 0%{?dist}
> The Release: tag should start at 1.
Fixed as Release: 1%{?dist} in release tag nd changelog

> The Group: tag should not be used. 
Group tags are removed
> >Source0: https://github.com/websnarf/bstrlib/archive/master.zip
> Refer to a git tag or commit instead.
Fixed as Source0: https://github.com/websnarf/bstrlib/archive/v%{updatever}.zip

> >%{_libdir}/bstrlib/
> >%{_includedir}/bstrlib/
Fixed by adding %dir %{_libdir}/bstrlib/, %dir %{_includedir}/bstrlib/

> Also, I believe that the use of both %{buildroot} and ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} is
> discouraged; it should be one or the other.

Fixed mix use of %{buildroot} and ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} 
(described in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS)
by replacing %{buildroot} with ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}

Built in copr rawhide, sorry for the inconvenience of changing URLs.
New srpm URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/yecheng/bstrlib/fedora-rawhide-i386/00584721-bstrlib/bstrlib-1.0.0-1.fc27.src.rpm

New spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/yecheng/bstrlib/fedora-rawhide-i386/00584721-bstrlib/bstrlib.spec

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #14 from Dominic Hopf  ---
So here is the Review Request for perl-AWS-Signature4:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476481

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

Dominic Hopf  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1476481




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476481
[Bug 1476481] Review Request: perl-AWS-Signature4 - Perl module for
creating a version4 signature for Amazon Web Services
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1476481] Review Request: perl-AWS-Signature4 - Perl module for creating a version4 signature for Amazon Web Services

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476481

Dominic Hopf  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1120788




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120788
[Bug 1120788] Review Request: Rex - Tool for Automation, Remote Execution
and Configuration Deployment
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1476481] New: Review Request: perl-AWS-Signature4 - Perl module for creating a version4 signature for Amazon Web Services

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476481

Bug ID: 1476481
   Summary: Review Request: perl-AWS-Signature4 - Perl module for
creating a version4 signature for Amazon Web Services
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: dma...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



This module is used by by Rex(ify) which is currently under review here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120788

Spec URL:
https://dmaphy.fedorapeople.org/perl-AWS-Signature4/perl-AWS-Signature4.spec
SRPM URL:
https://dmaphy.fedorapeople.org/perl-AWS-Signature4/perl-AWS-Signature4-1.02-1.fc26.src.rpm
Description: This module implement's Amazon Web Service's Signature version 4
(http://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/signature-version-4.html).
Fedora Account System Username: dmaphy

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

[Bug 1476440] Review Request: gimp-luminosity-masks - Luminosity mask channels plug-in for Gimp

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476440



--- Comment #2 from Alexander Ploumistos  ---
As most of the sections from fedora-review do not apply, I am not going to
include the text here - almost every relevant section is OK. Just a couple of
things:

1. The default location for addons AppStream metadata has changed, see:
https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/sect-Metadata-Addon.html

I've just sent a message to devel about this.


2. I always get confused with the "foo or later" licenses, but according to the
text in the script's header, shouldn't the license be GPLv2+? In both the spec
file and the metainfo.xml you have GPLv3+ (and of course the license text is
that of GPL3). In the case of "or later" licenses, can we use a newer version
just by redistributing the source material, or is that reserved for when there
are modifications to the code? By the way, does packaging count as modification
or redistribution?

These two are from the "SHOULD items" from fedora-review:

[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.

Obviously, it is in your discretion how (and if) you are going to deal with
them, I just feel I should point them out.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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 #13 from Dominic Hopf  ---
Another set of improvements:

Spec URL: https://dmaphy.fedorapeople.org/Rex/Rex.spec
SRPM URL: https://dmaphy.fedorapeople.org/Rex/Rex-1.4.1-4.fc26.src.rpm
RPM URL: https://dmaphy.fedorapeople.org/Rex/Rex-1.4.1-4.fc26.noarch.rpm

I'm still working on a package for AWS::Signature4. Review Request for that one
will follow.

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

[Bug 1476440] Review Request: gimp-luminosity-masks - Luminosity mask channels plug-in for Gimp

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476440

Alexander Ploumistos  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1476440] Review Request: gimp-luminosity-masks - Luminosity mask channels plug-in for Gimp

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476440

Alexander Ploumistos  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||alex.ploumis...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|alex.ploumis...@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 1476458] Review Request: paho-c - MQTT client library in C

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476458

Iwicki Artur  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 1476458] Review Request: paho-c - MQTT client library in C

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476458

Iwicki Artur  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||fed...@svgames.pl



--- Comment #1 from Iwicki Artur  ---
>Group: Development/Tools
>Group: Development/Libraries
The Group: tag should not be used.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections

>%package devel
>Requires: paho-c
This allows to use the -devel package with any version of the main package. The
versions should be an exact match. You can use "Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}" to achieve this.

>%doc edl-v10 epl-v10
These files should be marked as %license.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

I didn't try building the package, but as far as I can see, the devel-docs
package only contains Doxygen-generated documentation. You can mark the package
as "BuildArch: noarch" to make it an architecture-agnostic package.

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

[Bug 1476434] Review Request: Bstrlib - Better String Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476434

Iwicki Artur  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||fed...@svgames.pl



--- Comment #1 from Iwicki Artur  ---
>Release: 0%{?dist}
The Release: tag should start at 1.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Simple_versioning

>Group: System Environment/Libraries
>Group: Development/Libraries
The Group: tag should not be used. 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections

>Source0: https://github.com/websnarf/bstrlib/archive/master.zip
This will always fetch the latest snapshot of the master branch, which
introduces a risk of the RPM version not matching the software version. Refer
to a git tag or commit instead.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Git_Hosting_Services

>%{_libdir}/bstrlib/
>%{_includedir}/bstrlib/
These directories are unowned. You may want to use the %dir macro to mark a
directory as owned, without auto-owning all the files inside.

Also, I believe that the use of both %{buildroot} and ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} is
discouraged; it should be one or the other.

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

[Bug 1476458] New: Review Request: paho-c - MQTT client library in C

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476458

Bug ID: 1476458
   Summary: Review Request: paho-c - MQTT client library in C
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: angusyo...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://github.com/orpiske/paho.mqtt.c/blob/fedora-upstream-changes/dist/paho-c.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/orpiske/paho-testing/fedora-26-x86_64/00584213-paho-c/paho-c-1.2.0-3.fc26.src.rpm
Description: The Paho MQTT C Client is a fully fledged MQTT client written in
ANSI standard C.
Fedora Account System Username: opiske

Successful Koji build link:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20807458

Dear Fedora Community, this is my first "official" package. Therefore, some
kind of sponsorship or mentorship would be greatly appreciated. 

I am not an upstream maintainer for the project, however I am a regular
contributor. For the last few months I have been helping the Eclipse Paho C
community to make their library more easily available for Fedora, CentOS and
RHEL distributions (a list of my contributions is available here:
https://github.com/eclipse/paho.mqtt.c/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3Aorpiske+is%3Aclosed
/ and here's my COPR for that project
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/orpiske/paho-testing/) 

Recently, the community released a new version of their library, version 1.2.0
and they would like to have their project added to Fedora. 

If necessary, the upstream work to adjust the spec file to the Fedora packaging
standards can be tracked on this upstream pull request:
https://github.com/eclipse/paho.mqtt.c/pull/314.

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