[Bug 1476085] Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids

[bugzilla]

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

Michael Cullen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #14 from Michael Cullen  ---
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 1476085] Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #13 from Michael Cullen  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===


= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
 generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/michael/fedora-
 review/1476085-libsemigroups/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/.build-id(ripgrep)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: 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
 libsemigroups-doc , libsemigroups-debuginfo
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: 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 

[Bug 1476085] Review Request: libsemigroups - C++ library for semigroups and monoids

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #12 from Jerry James  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #10)
> I haven't.

I encourage you to do so.  That is a great way to start making connections in
the Fedora community.

> I have made a handful or two
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.
> cgi?bug_status=NEW_status=VERIFIED_status=ASSIGNED_status=MODIFIE
> D_status=ON_DEV_status=ON_QA_status=RELEASE_PENDING_status=PO
> ST=zebob.m%40gmail.
> com_to1=1=1=1=exact_id=
> 7650438

Okay, I will try to take a look at these in the coming week.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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 #11 from Jerry James  ---
Good heavens.  What was that remark you made about not thinking clearly? :-) 
Okay, I added the license to the -doc subpackage, and also made -doc be noarch.
 These are the actual URLs this time:

Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups-0.3.1-3.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 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 #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-AWS-Signature4-1.02-2.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-ac10151d8e

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

[Bug 1469331] Review Request: fedrepo-req - A CLI tool that provides an easy way to submit ticket requests for packaging tasks in Fedora

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469331



--- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System  ---
fedrepo-req-0.3.0-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-6b16eeef6d

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

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

[bugzilla]

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

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #7 from Jerry James  ---
Okay, looks good.  This 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 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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-AWS-Signature4-1.02-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-c777df963b

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

[Bug 1469331] Review Request: fedrepo-req - A CLI tool that provides an easy way to submit ticket requests for packaging tasks in Fedora

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469331



--- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System  ---
fedrepo-req-0.3.0-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-5496b02e1a

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

[Bug 1469331] Review Request: fedrepo-req - A CLI tool that provides an easy way to submit ticket requests for packaging tasks in Fedora

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469331



--- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System  ---
fedrepo-req-0.3.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-c83dab08bc

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

[Bug 1469331] Review Request: fedrepo-req - A CLI tool that provides an easy way to submit ticket requests for packaging tasks in Fedora

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469331

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System  ---
fedrepo-req-0.3.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-7cf013efdd

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

[Bug 1268742] Review Request: rubygem-bacon-colored_output - Colored output for Bacon test framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268742

Roman Joost  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #7 from Roman Joost  ---
Approved. Many thanks!

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

[Bug 1268742] Review Request: rubygem-bacon-colored_output - Colored output for Bacon test framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268742



--- Comment #6 from Roman Joost  ---
Diff against the old review:

--- ../1268742-rubygem-bacon-colored_output_old/review.txt  2017-07-28
09:46:15.738517634 +1000
+++ review.txt  2017-07-31 10:37:06.139563839 +1000
@@ -74,6 +74,17 @@
  Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
 [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

+Ruby:
+[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
+ independent under %{gem_dir}.
+[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
+[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
+[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
+[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
+[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
+[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
+[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
+
 = SHOULD items =

 Generic:
@@ -86,7 +97,7 @@
  Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem-
  bacon-colored_output-doc
 [x]: Package functions as described.
-[!]: Latest version is packaged.
+[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.
@@ -122,9 +133,9 @@

 Rpmlint
 ---
-Checking: rubygem-bacon-colored_output-1.0.1-2.fc25.noarch.rpm
-  rubygem-bacon-colored_output-doc-1.0.1-2.fc25.noarch.rpm
-  rubygem-bacon-colored_output-1.0.1-2.fc25.src.rpm
+Checking: rubygem-bacon-colored_output-1.1.1-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
+  rubygem-bacon-colored_output-doc-1.1.1-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
+  rubygem-bacon-colored_output-1.1.1-1.fc25.src.rpm
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


@@ -160,14 +171,14 @@

 Source checksums
 
-https://rubygems.org/gems/bacon-colored_output-1.0.1.gem :
-  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
94653ad17450868ceb8d8154d516ce9201637388a0edfcd6f6b80372bfc18146
-  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
94653ad17450868ceb8d8154d516ce9201637388a0edfcd6f6b80372bfc18146
+https://rubygems.org/gems/bacon-colored_output-1.1.1.gem :
+  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
fde2b3ec8f42cf0a8b2597bc625b20d5af88d08d9fcc715370953637f780defe
+  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
fde2b3ec8f42cf0a8b2597bc625b20d5af88d08d9fcc715370953637f780defe


 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1268742
 Buildroot used: fedora-25-x86_64
-Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
+Active plugins: Generic, Ruby, Shell-api
 Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl,
Haskell, R, PHP
 Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

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

[Bug 1268742] Review Request: rubygem-bacon-colored_output - Colored output for Bacon test framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268742



--- Comment #5 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". 5 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/rjoost/tmp/1268742-rubygem-bacon-colored_output/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

Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
 independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: 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-
 bacon-colored_output-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

[Bug 1465885] Review Request: golang-github-cznic-golex - Lex/ Flex-like utility written in Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465885
Bug 1465885 depends on bug 1465884, which changed state.

Bug 1465884 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-cznic-lex - Support for 
(f)lex-like tool on .l source files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465884

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1465884] Review Request: golang-github-cznic-lex - Support for (f) lex-like tool on .l source files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465884

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2017-07-20 10:02:31 |2017-07-30 20:20:54



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-cznic-lex-0-0.1.20170112.git68050f5.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 1468768] Review Request: domoticz - Open source Home Automation System

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1468768

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-07-30 20:20:52



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
domoticz-3.5877-1.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 1428202] Review Request: sirikali - GUI front end to encfs,cryfs, gocryptfs and securefs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1428202
Bug 1428202 depends on bug 1429090, which changed state.

Bug 1429090 Summary: ecryptfs-simple does not work without proper root 
environment (su -l)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1429090

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1432993] Review Request: hd-idle - Spin down idle [USB] hard disks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432993



--- Comment #4 from srakitnican  ---
I have spotted few things myself that I intend to fix them for the next package
release.

 - BuildRequires: gcc
 - Try to use macros for make_build and make_install

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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 #8 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/gimp-luminosity-masks

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

[Bug 1432993] Review Request: hd-idle - Spin down idle [USB] hard disks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432993

srakitnican  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(samuel.rakitnican |
   |@gmail.com) |



--- Comment #3 from srakitnican  ---
Right, Lubomir Rintel sponsored me on camotics and libdxflib. I guess I don't
need a sponsor then.

(In reply to Randy Barlow from comment #1)
> Hello!
> 
> I am a package sponsor and I am willing to review this package for you.
> Before I begin reviewing your spec file, can you confirm that you still wish
> to be a packager? I see that this has been open for about four months, so I
> just want to make sure you are still interested before spending time on it.

Yes, still interested, review would be nice, 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 1467322] Review Request: manifest-tool - A command line tool used for creating manifest list objects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1467322



--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System  ---
manifest-tool-0.6.0-4.gita28af2b.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7
stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
xoreos-tools-0.0.4-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1432993] Review Request: hd-idle - Spin down idle [USB] hard disks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432993

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 1432993] Review Request: hd-idle - Spin down idle [USB] hard disks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432993

Iwicki Artur  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||fed...@svgames.pl



--- Comment #2 from Iwicki Artur  ---
Randy, it seems that Samuel has been already been sponsored (on two different
occasions, even). I'll go ahead and remove the "FE-NEEDSPONSOR" block.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1457949
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432983

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

[Bug 1432993] Review Request: hd-idle - Spin down idle [USB] hard disks

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432993

Randy Barlow  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ra...@electronsweatshop.com
   ||,
   ||samuel.rakitni...@gmail.com
  Flags||needinfo?(samuel.rakitnican
   ||@gmail.com)



--- Comment #1 from Randy Barlow  ---
Hello!

I am a package sponsor and I am willing to review this package for you. Before
I begin reviewing your spec file, can you confirm that you still wish to be a
packager? I see that this has been open for about four months, so I just want
to make sure you are still interested before spending time on 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 1476489] Review Request: xfce4-statusnotifier-plugin - Panel area status notifier plugin for Xfce4

[bugzilla]

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

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Hello,

Two points:

 - If you're installing a .desktop file, you must validate it in %check:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage
 - Your package includes a static library (*.la). It shouldn't be included. You
can pass --disable-static to automake.

You have rpmlint errors:

 - debuginfo-without-sources:
This debuginfo package appears to contain debug symbols but no source files.
This is often a sign of binaries being unexpectedly stripped too early during
the build, or being compiled without compiler debug flags (which again often
is a sign of distro's default compiler flags ignored which might have security
consequences), or other compiler flags which result in rpmbuild's debuginfo
extraction not working as expected.  Verify that the binaries are not
unexpectedly stripped and that the intended compiler flags are used.

 - hardcoded-library-path:
A library path is hardcoded to one of the following paths: /lib, /usr/lib. It
should be replaced by something like /%{_lib} or %{_libdir}.
  Though I'm not sure why it's outputting this one as your library is in
/usr/lib64 here. Maybe someone can chime in to explain it.

I can't test it but it builds fine in mock.


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: 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]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/xfce4
 -statusnotifier-plugin/review-xfce4-statusnotifier-
 plugin/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
 contains icons.
 Note: icons in xfce4-statusnotifier-plugin
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 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]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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 

[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

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



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

A few comments

 - You should use %make_build instead of make %{?_smp_mflags}
 - You should add a Categories to your desktop file
 - /usr/bin/update-desktop-database &>/dev/null ||: is not needed as your
desktop file does not contain a MimeType key. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database_.28Needs_description.29
 - In %files, line "%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/": aren't you missing a *
at the end or just statusicon.svg, since it's the only file.
 - The Group: tag mutn't be included in Fedora spec file. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections
 - %defattr(-,root,root,-) is not needed

You have a rpmlint error like on your other package:

 - debuginfo-without-sources:
This debuginfo package appears to contain debug symbols but no source files.
This is often a sign of binaries being unexpectedly stripped too early during
the build, or being compiled without compiler debug flags (which again often
is a sign of distro's default compiler flags ignored which might have security
consequences), or other compiler flags which result in rpmbuild's debuginfo
extraction not working as expected.  Verify that the binaries are not
unexpectedly stripped and that the intended compiler flags are used.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/danmaQ/review-
 danmaQ/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor,
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps(hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-
 logos)
[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.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
 Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: 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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
 contains icons.
 Note: icons in danmaQ
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of 

[Bug 1476608] Review Request: ubridge - Bridge for UDP tunnels, Ethernet, TAP and VMnet interfaces

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476608



--- Comment #1 from Athmane Madjoudj  ---
NB. This is required by new GNS3.

Rpmlint output:

./SPECS/ubridge.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

./SRPMS/ubridge-0.9.12-1.fc26.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

./RPMS/x86_64/ubridge-debuginfo-0.9.12-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

./RPMS/x86_64/ubridge-0.9.12-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm
ubridge.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ubridge
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

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

[Bug 1476608] New: Review Request: ubridge - Bridge for UDP tunnels, Ethernet, TAP and VMnet interfaces

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476608

Bug ID: 1476608
   Summary: Review Request: ubridge - Bridge for UDP tunnels,
Ethernet, TAP and VMnet interfaces
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: athma...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://athmane.fedorapeople.org/review/ubridge.spec
SRPM URL: https://athmane.fedorapeople.org/review/ubridge-0.9.12-1.fc26.src.rpm
Description: 
uBridge is a simple application to create user-land bridges between various
technologies. Currently bridging between UDP tunnels, Ethernet and TAP
interfaces is supported. Packet capture is also supported.

Fedora Account System Username: athmane

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

[Bug 1476438] Review Request: clustersos - collect multiple sosreports simultaneously

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476438



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
This looks fine to me. Now you need someone to officially approve 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 1476438] Review Request: clustersos - collect multiple sosreports simultaneously

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476438



--- Comment #2 from Jake Hunsaker  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
> Hello,
> 
> A few points:
>  - since you are the developer, a LICENSE file would be nice ofr it to be
> included in the package.

Done.

>  - Fedora 25 introduced the macro pythonXdist, you can therefore require
> paramiko with: python2dist(paramiko) See
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> Python#Requires_and_BuildRequires_with_standardized_names

Cool, didn't know that. Updated.

>  - You define a sitelib macro but it's not necessary as there is already a
> %{python2_sitelib} macro available.

Updated.

>  - The name of the bin is clustersosreport but the name used in the man page
> makes it seems the command is clustersos

Looks like somehow the updated man page never got committed when I changed the
binary from clustersos to clustersosreport. Thanks for pointing that out.

Updated.

Updated the download locations

Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jhunsake/clustersos/clustersos.spec
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/jhunsake/clustersos/clustersos-1.1.1-1.fc25.src.rpm


Sanity check koji build still passes:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20904114

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

[Bug 1476596] New: Review Request: dtkwidget - Deepin tool kit widget modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476596

Bug ID: 1476596
   Summary: Review Request: dtkwidget - Deepin tool kit widget
modules
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: sensor@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



SPEC:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/FZUG/repo/master/rpms/deepin_project/dtkwidget.spec

Description: Deepin tool kit widget modules

Fedora Account System Username: mosquito

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

[Bug 1476595] New: Review Request: dtkcore - Deepin tool kit core modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476595

Bug ID: 1476595
   Summary: Review Request: dtkcore - Deepin tool kit core modules
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: sensor@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



SPEC:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/FZUG/repo/master/rpms/deepin_project/dtkcore.spec

Description: Deepin tool kit core modules

Fedora Account System Username: mosquito

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

[Bug 1476438] Review Request: clustersos - collect multiple sosreports simultaneously

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476438

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Hello,

A few points:
 - since you are the developer, a LICENSE file would be nice ofr it to be
included in the package.
 - Fedora 25 introduced the macro pythonXdist, you can therefore require
paramiko with: python2dist(paramiko) See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Requires_and_BuildRequires_with_standardized_names
 - You define a sitelib macro but it's not necessary as there is already a
%{python2_sitelib} macro available.
 - The name of the bin is clustersosreport but the name used in the man page
makes it seems the command is clustersos


Otherwise the rest is fine.

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: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/clustersos/review-
 clustersos/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).
[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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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

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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).

[Bug 1476590] New: Review Request: deepin-daemon - Daemon handling the DDE session settings

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476590

Bug ID: 1476590
   Summary: Review Request: deepin-daemon - Daemon handling the
DDE session settings
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: sensor@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



SPEC:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/FZUG/repo/master/rpms/deepin_project/deepin-daemon.spec

Description: Daemon handling the DDE session settings

Fedora Account System Username: mosquito

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

[Bug 1476589] New: Review Request: deepin-api - Go-lang bingding for dde-daemon

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476589

Bug ID: 1476589
   Summary: Review Request: deepin-api - Go-lang bingding for
dde-daemon
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: sensor@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



SPEC:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/FZUG/repo/master/rpms/deepin_project/deepin-api.spec

Description: Go-lang bingding for dde-daemon

Fedora Account System Username: mosquito

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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 #10 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #6)
> (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?

I haven't.

I have made a handful or two
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW_status=VERIFIED_status=ASSIGNED_status=MODIFIED_status=ON_DEV_status=ON_QA_status=RELEASE_PENDING_status=POST=zebob.m%40gmail.com_to1=1=1=1=exact_id=7650438

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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 #16 from Robin Lee  ---
> install -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/
> install -p ChangeLog CONTRIBUTORS README 
> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}/

Theses two lines are not necessary, since %doc moacro will copy the files for
you.

> %attr(755, root, root) 
> %{perl_vendorlib}/%{name}/Commands/templates/append_if_no_such_line.tpl.pl
This line will end with a warning during packaging:
File listed twice:
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Rex/Commands/templates/append_if_no_such_line.tpl.pl

You can just run chmod during %build instead of using %attr

> Requires: perl(AWS::Signature4)
This line may not necessary since this requirement is auto-generated.

And this package may require 'perl(Net::SSH2)' but not auto-generated. I ran a
simple synopsis of rex, but it throw an error:

[2017-07-30 21:40:32] WARN - No Rexfile found.
[2017-07-30 21:40:32] WARN - Create a file named 'Rexfile' in this directory,
[2017-07-30 21:40:32] WARN - or specify the file you want to use with:
[2017-07-30 21:40:32] WARN -rex -f file_to_use task_to_run
[2017-07-30 21:40:32] INFO - Running task eval-line on 192.168.122.198
[2017-07-30 21:40:33] ERROR - 1 out of 1 task(s) failed:
[2017-07-30 21:40:33] ERROR - eval-line failed on 192.168.122.198
[2017-07-30 21:40:33] ERROR - Error loading connection interface SSH.
[2017-07-30 21:40:33] ERROR - Can't locate Net/SSH2.pm in @INC (you may
need to install the Net::SSH2 module) (@INC contains: CODE(0x118dfc0)
/usr/lib/rex/lib /usr/local/lib64/perl5 /usr/local/share/perl5
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/lib64/perl5
/usr/share/perl5 . CODE(0x118e188) /home/cheese/.rex/recipes) at (eval 42) line
1.

And it goes well after I install 'perl(Net::SSH2)' manually.

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

[Bug 1476584] New: Review Request: deepin-session-ui - Deepin desktop-environment Session UI module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476584

Bug ID: 1476584
   Summary: Review Request: deepin-session-ui - Deepin
desktop-environment Session UI module
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: sensor@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



SPEC:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/FZUG/repo/master/rpms/deepin_project/deepin-session-ui.spec

Description: Deepin desktop-environment Session UI module

Fedora Account System Username: mosquito

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

[Bug 1476583] New: Review Request: startdde - Starter of deepin desktop environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476583

Bug ID: 1476583
   Summary: Review Request: startdde - Starter of deepin desktop
environment
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: sensor@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



SPEC:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/FZUG/repo/master/rpms/deepin_project/startdde.spec

SRPM:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mosquito/deepin/fedora-25-x86_64/00584884-startdde/startdde-3.1.13-1.fc25.src.rpm

Description: Starter of deepin desktop environment

Fedora Account System Username: mosquito

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

[Bug 1476573] New: Review Request: deepin-mutter - Base window manager for deepin, fork of gnome mutter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476573

Bug ID: 1476573
   Summary: Review Request: deepin-mutter - Base window manager
for deepin, fork of gnome mutter
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: sensor@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



SPEC:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/FZUG/repo/master/rpms/deepin_project/deepin-mutter.spec

SRPM:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mosquito/deepin/fedora-25-x86_64/00584879-deepin-mutter/deepin-mutter-3.20.20-1.fc25.src.rpm

Description: Base window manager for deepin, fork of gnome mutter

Fedora Account System Username: mosquito

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

[Bug 1476565] New: Review Request: deepin-dbus-factory - Golang and QML DBus factory for DDE

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476565

Bug ID: 1476565
   Summary: Review Request: deepin-dbus-factory - Golang and QML
DBus factory for DDE
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: sensor@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



SPEC:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/FZUG/repo/master/rpms/deepin_project/deepin-dbus-factory.spec

SRPM:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mosquito/deepin/fedora-25-x86_64/00579747-deepin-dbus-factory/deepin-dbus-factory-3.1.6-1.git0ef9267.fc25.src.rpm

Description: Golang and QML DBus factory for DDE

Fedora Account System Username: mosquito

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

[Bug 1476564] New: Review Request: deepin-dbus-generator - Convert dbus interfaces to go-lang or qml wrapper code

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476564

Bug ID: 1476564
   Summary: Review Request: deepin-dbus-generator - Convert dbus
interfaces to go-lang or qml wrapper code
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: sensor@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



SPEC:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/FZUG/repo/master/rpms/deepin_project/deepin-dbus-generator.spec

Description: Convert dbus interfaces to go-lang or qml wrapper code

Fedora Account System Username: mosquito

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

[Bug 1476560] New: Review Request: deepin-desktop-schemas - GSettings deepin desktop-wide schemas

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476560

Bug ID: 1476560
   Summary: Review Request: deepin-desktop-schemas - GSettings
deepin desktop-wide schemas
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: sensor@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



SPEC:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/FZUG/repo/master/rpms/deepin_project/deepin-desktop-schemas.spec

SRPM:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mosquito/deepin/fedora-25-x86_64/00584867-deepin-desktop-schemas/deepin-desktop-schemas-3.1.14-1.fc25.src.rpm

Description: GSettings deepin desktop-wide schemas

Fedora Account System Username: mosquito

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

[Bug 1476558] New: Review Request: deepin-desktop-base - Base component for Deepin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476558

Bug ID: 1476558
   Summary: Review Request: deepin-desktop-base - Base component
for Deepin
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: sensor@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



SPEC:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/FZUG/repo/master/rpms/deepin_project/deepin-desktop-base.spec

SRPM:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mosquito/deepin/fedora-26-i386/00584862-deepin-desktop-base/deepin-desktop-base-2016.12.6-1.fc26.src.rpm

Description: Base component for Deepin

Fedora Account System Username: mosquito

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



--- Comment #5 from Iwicki Artur  ---
Sorry for not pointing this out earlier, but I just consulted the Licensing
Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Valid_License_Short_Names

>The License: field must be filled with the appropriate license Short License 
>identifier(s) from the "Good License" tables on the Fedora Licensing page.
"Eclipse Distribution License 1.0" shortname is "BSD", while "Eclipse Public
License 1.0" shortname is "EPL". This means that instead of
>License: Eclipse Distribution License 1.0 and Eclipse Public License 1.0
you should use
>License: BSD and EPL

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



--- Comment #4 from Otavio R. Piske  ---
Thanks for the explanation. 

I renamed the package to -doc. 

Here's the latest Koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20900568. The link to the
spec remains the same.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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 #15 from Dominic Hopf  ---
The -5 release adds the dependency to perl-AWS-Signature4:

Spec URL: https://dmaphy.fedorapeople.org/Rex/Rex.spec
SRPM URL: https://dmaphy.fedorapeople.org/Rex/Rex-1.4.1-5.fc26.src.rpm
RPM URL: https://dmaphy.fedorapeople.org/Rex/Rex-1.4.1-5.fc26.noarch.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 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 #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-AWS-Signature4-1.02-2.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-ac10151d8e

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #3 from Iwicki Artur  ---
In general, it's best if the docs can be installed without having to pull in
any parts of their parent package.
>Files marked as documentation must not cause the package to pull in more 
>dependencies than it would without the documentation.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation

As a general rule, %{_isa} and "BuildArch: noarch" do not go along. %{_isa}
expands to the architecture description, so it creates an arch-specific
dependency. 

Also, last thing - as mentioned in the link above, the subpackage name should
be -doc, not -docs (without the "s").

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



--- Comment #2 from Otavio R. Piske  ---
Thanks for your review Iwicki. 

I have modified all the items you have pointed. Here's some updated links: 

Latest COPR build for reference:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/orpiske/paho-testing/build/584853/
Updated successful Koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20899923
Upstream discussion: https://github.com/eclipse/paho.mqtt.c/issues/315 (we
switched to an issue instead of a PR discussion upstream)

The link to the spec remains the same:
https://github.com/orpiske/paho.mqtt.c/blob/fedora-upstream-changes/dist/paho-c.spec

Finally, I would kindly ask for an advice regarding the dependencies for the
docs package: should I enforce the same "Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}" on the docs package as well?

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #6 from Michael Cullen  ---
> BuildRequires: gzip isn't necessary.
I included it for completeness, and there doesn't seem to really be an explicit
exceptions list now, however since it's practically always going to be there
for handling tarballs, I've removed it. (see
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/497)

> Second, the package needs to have Requires: hicolor-icon-theme, not 
> BuildRequires: hicolor-icon-theme.
Gah of course! Clearly wasn't thinking straight!

Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mich181189/icemon/icemon.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/~mich181189/icemon/icemon-3.1.0-5.fc27.src.rpm

(there is a copr build, but I forgot to include a sensible comment on the
changelog line so I've posted a more sane spec file there!)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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 #9 from Michael Cullen  ---
Ok, nearly there. A couple of things about that doc subpackage though.

One of the review checklist items is:
* License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.

it's possible to install the doc subpackage without getting the license file.
Conceptually I can see why you might just want the docs (though it's unlikely!)
so maybe the best thing to do is to include the license file in the docs
package as well?

Also, I wonder if the doc package should be noarch? 

Other than that it looks good. that pthread thing looks ugly and I can't help
thinking there's something else going on there but it'll do.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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 #8 from Michael Cullen  ---
I'm guessing you mean 

Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/libsemigroups/libsemigroups-0.3.1-2.fc27.src.rpm

(just fixing the SRPM filename to refer to version 2 rather than a 404 error!)

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