[Bug 1479903] Review Request: python-yubikey-manager - python library and command line tool for configuring a YubiKey
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479903 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Everything is good, package accepted. -- 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 1479903] Review Request: python-yubikey-manager - python library and command line tool for configuring a YubiKey
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479903 --- Comment #2 from Seth Jennings --- Thanks for the responsive review! Less than 4 hours after submission. Impressive :) I made the recommended changes. -- 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 1471561] Review Request: python-oletools - Tools to analyze Microsoft OLE2 files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1471561
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
No need to define %sum: just use Summary normally, and then %summary wherever
necessary.
I'd do something like
%global _description \
The python-oletools is a package of python tools from Philippe Lagadec\
to analyze Microsoft OLE2 files (also called Structured Storage,\
...
%description %_description
%description -n python2-%{gitname} %_description
%description -n python3-%{gitname} %_description
to avoid repeating the same text 3 times.
Are you sure that both python2 and python3 versions of the executables should
be installed? I'd expect to get the same output from either version, so it
should be enough to just package one of them (python2 it seems).
If you package both, it'd be better to use the suffixes recommended by
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Executables_in_.2Fusr.2Fbin:
-3.6, -3, -2.7, -2.
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/oletools/LICENSE.txt
should be marked as %license, and
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/oletools/README.rst
/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/oletools/README.html
should be in %doc or removed.
It seems you also need
Provides: bundled(DridexUrlDecoder)
Provides: bundled(tablestream)
Provides: bundled(xglob)
Provides: bundled(xxxswf)
Provides: bundled(zipfile27)
--
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 1479967] New: Review Request: fritzing-parts - Parts library for the Fritzing electronic design application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479967 Bug ID: 1479967 Summary: Review Request: fritzing-parts - Parts library for the Fritzing electronic design application Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: e...@logic.net QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~logic/fritzing-parts/fritzing-parts.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~logic/fritzing-parts/fritzing-parts-0.9.2b-1.fc27.src.rpm Description: Fritzing is a free software tool to support designers, artists and hobbyists to work creatively with interactive electronics. The fritzing-parts package contains a library of part definitions, including both meta-data and related graphics. Fedora Account System Username: logic This isn't a new package, technically; it's a split of the original fritzing package, allowing Fedora to release both Fritzing and it's parts library independently. Upstream has moved to a git-based distribution model for the parts library, so we'll be taking occasional checkpoints of that and shipping it on an ongoing basis. The plan is to get this split done first (as version 0.9.2b), then update both fritzing and fritzing-parts to 0.9.3b, and then finally update fritzing-parts to a point-in-time release from upstream git. If you review this, fedora-review is going to complain about a lot of duplicated paths with the fritzing package; that will be corrected after this package has been approved (by removing the parts library from fritzing, at which point fritzing will require fritzing-parts). I haven't added an explicit Conflicts to this (for <= current fritzing release), since the file conflicts will naturally handle that, but I'm open to the idea if someone thinks that's necessary. A successful koji scratch build of this is here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21116609 -- 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1471806 --- Comment #23 from Ralph Bean --- (fedrepo-req-admin): Apologies for the delay! -- 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1471806 --- Comment #22 from Ralph Bean --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/danmaq -- 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 1479903] Review Request: python-yubikey-manager - python library and command line tool for configuring a YubiKey
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479903
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Hello,
This looks good. Just one thing, you should use the %{py3_dist macro for your
BR and R:
%{py3_dist six pyusb pyscard click cryptography pyOpenSSL}
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Requires_and_BuildRequires_with_standardized_names
Also you've got rpmlint errors because you Requires libusb and libu2f-host
explicitly. You should not, dnf will pick the right libraries automatically.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated",
"*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 15 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-
yubikey-manager/review-python-yubikey-manager/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[-]: 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 fro
[Bug 1479844] Review Request: deepin-notifications - System notifications for linuxdeepin desktop environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479844
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Hello,
The package looks good. You could replace the -devel direct dependencies with
pkgconfig ones:
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(Qt5Svg)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(Qt5Qml)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(dtkutil)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(gtk+-2.0)
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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 38 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/deepin-notifications/review-deepin-
notifications/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{versi
[Bug 1476014] Review Request: icemon - Icecream GUI monitor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476014 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- icemon-3.1.0-5.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 1431748] Review Request: golang-github-cznic-ql - Embedded SQL database written in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431748 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-cznic-ql-1.1.0-1.20170522.gitba9eea9.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 1478461] Review Request: PyDrive - A wrapper library of google-api-python-client that simplifies many common Google Drive API tasks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1478461 --- Comment #3 from Ralph Bean --- (fedrepo-req-admin): Apologies for the delay! -- 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 1478461] Review Request: PyDrive - A wrapper library of google-api-python-client that simplifies many common Google Drive API tasks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1478461 --- Comment #2 from Ralph Bean --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/PyDrive -- 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 1478067] Review Request: nuvola-app-mixcloud - Mixcloud for Nuvola Player 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1478067 --- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean --- (fedrepo-req-admin): Apologies for the delay! -- 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 1478067] Review Request: nuvola-app-mixcloud - Mixcloud for Nuvola Player 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1478067 --- Comment #4 from Ralph Bean --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nuvola-app-mixcloud -- 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 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276 --- Comment #31 from Paulo Andrade --- Links are confusing. The https://download.gluster.org/pub/gluster/gdeploy/gdeploy.spec file is very outdated. The actual srpm is https://download.gluster.org/pub/gluster/gdeploy/gdeploy-2.0.2-13.src.rpm Spec from link differs from spec in srpm. Changelog is missing from -5 to -13 in the srpm. From the link jumps to -4 to -13. Tested downloading the src.rpm and running: $ fedora-review -r -n gdeploy I suggest you to install the fedora-review package, and test yourself running: $ fedora-review -b 1344276 This way you can see most if not all details a reviewer will talk about :) * Please update the bug report with matching SRPM URL and SPEC URL. Also make sure src.rpm spec matches spec in SPEC url. * License does not match. There are several GPLv3+ licensed files in the tarball. Apparently, should use "License: GPLv2+ and GPLv3+" File gdeployrest/gdeployapi.py is GPLv3+ with incorrect FSF address. * Documentation should be built with sphinx. Not install sources, e.g. in build have: pushd doc make html popd * Documentation should be in a separate -doc package. It is already large in source format, and will be larger in html format. * Upstream source is not available: https://github.com/gluster/gdeploy/archive/v2.0.2.tar.gz#/gdeploy-2.0.2.tar.gz Latest from github is 2.0.1. * Please either add a %check section and run the script in the tests directory, or give a good reason for not to. Usually, just loading the python files is enough to detect issues on other architectures, or other "random" issues. -- 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 1477134] Review Request: authselect - Configures authentication and identity sources from supported profiles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477134 Ralph Bean changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rb...@redhat.com --- Comment #7 from Ralph Bean --- git repository created. Sorry for the delay. Let us know if you hit any problems! -- 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 1421046] Review Request: golang-deepin-go-lib - Go bindings for DDE development
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421046
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Hello,
I think you should use the gofed script as your basis and not go too far away
from this script.
For example, your Provides should list all the libraries provided by the
package:
Provides: golang(%{import_path}) = %{version}-%{release}
Provides: golang(%{import_path}/app) = %{version}-%{release}
Provides: golang(%{import_path}/appinfo) = %{version}-%{release}
Provides: golang(%{import_path}/appinfo/desktopappinfo) =
%{version}-%{release}
Provides: golang(%{import_path}/arch) = %{version}-%{release}
Provides: golang(%{import_path}/archive) = %{version}-%{release}
Provides: golang(%{import_path}/archive/gzip) = %{version}-%{release}
Provides: golang(%{import_path}/archive/utils) = %{version}-%
and so on. Otherwise golang packages using this library won't be able to find
their dependencies. By the way, this is a problem you have on your other golang
libraries you have on your COPR. If you intend to submit them, I recommend you
to start with the basis of the gofed script and then fix whatever issue
remains.
Also you have no %check for this library. This is highly recommended.
Don't forget to add the various testdata to your unit-test-devel.file-list. For
example:
# pack testdata
for file in $(find */*testdata */*/testdata) ; do
dirprefix=$(dirname $file)
install -d -p %{buildroot}/%{gopath}/src/%{import_path}/$dirprefix
cp -pav $file %{buildroot}/%{gopath}/src/%{import_path}/$file
echo "%%{gopath}/src/%%{import_path}/$file" >> unit-test-devel.file-list
done
You'll some BR for the tests, there are specified in the README.md. Shortlist:
# Required for tests
BuildRequires: dbus-x11
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(gdk-pixbuf-xlib-2.0)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libpulse)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libcanberra)
BuildRequires: mobile-broadband-provider-info
If some checks fail and you don't know why, best is to report them upstream and
deactivate them with the bugreport url in comment.
This shouldn't be a noarch, you should use the ExclusiveArch for Go:
ExclusiveArch: %{?go_arches:%{go_arches}}%{!?go_arches:%{ix86} x86_64 aarch64
%{arm}}
And BR the right compiler:
BuildRequires: %{?go_compiler:compiler(go-compiler)}%{!?go_compiler:golang}
--
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 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276 Paulo Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr ||a...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr ||a...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #30 from Paulo Andrade --- Taking for 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 1479903] New: Review Request: python-yubikey-manager - python library and command line tool for configuring a YubiKey
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479903 Bug ID: 1479903 Summary: Review Request: python-yubikey-manager - python library and command line tool for configuring a YubiKey Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sjenn...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://www.variantweb.net/pub/review/python-yubikey-manager.spec SRPM URL: https://www.variantweb.net/pub/review/python-yubikey-manager-0.4.0-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: Python library and command line tool for configuring a YubiKey. Fedora Account System Username: sjenning yubioath-desktop v4 upstream depends on this package and can't be updated until it is available. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1479073] Review Request: tcl-tclnagios - Library to simplify writing Nagios plugins in Tcl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479073 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST -- 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 1479730] Review Request: python-cloudpickle - Extended pickling support for Python objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479730 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST -- 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 1479073] Review Request: tcl-tclnagios - Library to simplify writing Nagios plugins in Tcl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479073
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
This is good for me, tcllib is indeed a tcl library, and everything else is
good to go.
Package accepted.
Thanks for your work.
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: "Unknown or generated". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/tcl-tclnagios
/review-tcl-tclnagios/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.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not
[Bug 1431748] Review Request: golang-github-cznic-ql - Embedded SQL database written in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431748 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-cznic-ql-1.1.0-1.20170522.gitba9eea9.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1477137] Review Request: tetrominos - Simple CLI logical game
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477137 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2017-08-09 11:59:16 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- tetrominos-1.0.1-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1404883] Review Request: python-aiosmtpd - Asyncio-based SMTP server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404883 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2017-08-09 11:57:57 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- python-aiosmtpd-1.0-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1476014] Review Request: icemon - Icecream GUI monitor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476014 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2017-08-09 11:58:24 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- icemon-3.1.0-5.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1479073] Review Request: tcl-tclnagios - Library to simplify writing Nagios plugins in Tcl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479073
--- Comment #4 from Wart ---
Many thanks for the review. It's been a few years since I last submitted a
package, and it seems there have been some tweaks in the guidelines since then.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3)
> Hello,
>
> A few thing:
>
[...]
> - I don't understand why you define:
> %global commit0 1009914f0683f1c7fe9f94ed2cbe895008c5e6d1
> %global gittag0 v1.3
> %global shortcommit0 %(c=%{commit0}; echo ${c:0:7})
It was unnecessary clutter from the git source guidelines. I've removed these.
> - You can drop the 'tcl' in both BuildRequires and Requires as the others
> dependencies already depends on it.
> - The BR "tcl-devel" could be required with pkgconfig: pkgconfig(tcl)
Technically, this would work, but to be pedantic, the package doesn't actually
use the pkgconfig file from tcl-devel to build, it uses tclConfig.sh. I'd like
to keep the BR as 'tcl-devel' to preserve that distinction.
> - You have a Rpmlint error:
> tcl-tclnagios.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency tcllib
>
> You shouldn't require directly the dependency to tcllib, it's automatically
> handled by dnf.
In this case, it's not. tcllib is a script library, not a shared library, so
the automatic dependency generation doesn't find it (I verified this behavior
in a scratch build). rpmlint is just confused because of the string 'lib' in
the name 'tcllib'.
All of the other issues noted have been fixed.
Here is the revised spec/srpm:
SPEC: https://wart.fedorapeople.org/tcl-tclnagios.spec
SRPM: https://wart.fedorapeople.org/tcl-tclnagios-1.3-4.fc27.src.rpm
Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21128126
--
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 1474033] Review Request: ucx - Communication library implementing high-performance messaging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474033
--- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt ---
> %files
> %{_libdir}/lib*.so*
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages
> %{_datadir}/ucx/perftest/*
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
> Extra files are now removed in %install, fixed issue with file pattern.
> Is there anything else to fix here? Please also see below.
The issue here is that the directories /usr/share/ucx and
/usr/share/ucs/perftest are not included in your packages. That's why I've
linked the directory ownership guidelines.
> -devel package now has 'Provides: %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release}'.
It is as if you deliberately misread
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
because even if a "compelling reason" where given as why to include the static
libs, they don't belong into the -devel package, if there are also shared libs.
> It reports "[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros" complaining
> on AC_PROG_LIBTOOL. Is it critical and has to fixed?
That's not part of the review guidelines or packaging guidelines. The tool is
trying to be helpful. In case it became necessary to regenerate the configure
script during the build process, such as for a fix, obsolete macros would be
problematic. It's something to fix upstream. Make sure you can autoreconf the
source tarball on a recent installation of Fedora.
> Another error it reports is from rpmlint: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath.
> Is there any other way to correctly specify the path for .so/executable files?
If check-rpaths during an official build complained about it, proceed as
described at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Beware_of_Rpath
> It also reports mismatch in sizes/checksums of the tarball, which is
> expected: current link is for prev release, we will create a new one
> (v1.2.1) once pass this review.
That is completely *unexpected*. The SourceURL *must* link exactly the source
archive that is included in the src.rpm.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is
used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1465889] Tracking: Deepin Desktop related package review tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465889 Zamir SUN changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1479844 ||(deepin-notifications) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479844 [Bug 1479844] Review Request: deepin-notifications - System notifications for linuxdeepin desktop environment -- 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 1479844] Review Request: deepin-notifications - System notifications for linuxdeepin desktop environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479844 Zamir SUN changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1465889 ||(DeepinDEPackageReview) Alias||deepin-notifications Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465889 [Bug 1465889] Tracking: Deepin Desktop related package review tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1479844] New: Review Request: deepin-notifications - System notifications for linuxdeepin desktop environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479844 Bug ID: 1479844 Summary: Review Request: deepin-notifications - System notifications for linuxdeepin desktop environment 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/deepin-notifications/deepin-notifications.spec SRPM URL: https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/deepin-notifications/deepin-notifications-3.0.6-2.fc27.src.rpm Description: System notifications for linuxdeepin desktop environment. 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 1479730] Review Request: python-cloudpickle - Extended pickling support for Python objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479730 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- You're good to go, package accepted. Thanks for your work. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1421046] Review Request: golang-deepin-go-lib - Go bindings for DDE development
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421046 --- Comment #4 from sensor@gmail.com --- SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mosquito/deepin/fedora-25-x86_64/00587925-golang-deepin-go-lib/deepin-go-lib.spec SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mosquito/deepin/fedora-25-x86_64/00587925-golang-deepin-go-lib/golang-deepin-go-lib-1.0.5-2.fc25.src.rpm Back to use golang-github-howeyc-fsnotify 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 1476589] Review Request: deepin-api - Go-lang bingding for dde-daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476589
--- Comment #6 from Ye Cheng <18969068...@163.com> ---
Please submit the review requests of the following packages(and add them on
depends on field), so the package won't have broken dependencies when
merged.
golang-github-disintegration-imaging-devel
golang-github-alecthomas-kingpin-devel
golang-github-BurntSushi-xgbutil-devel
golang-github-BurntSushi-xgb-devel
golang-deepin-go-lib-devel
deepin-go-dbus-factory
Please use BuildRequires: pkgconfig(gtk+-3.0) instead of BuildRequires:
gtk3-devel for all the libraries located using pkg-config, because the
dependency won't break when the name of the package providing the library was
changed when coded this way.
> Makefile:12
> LDFLAGS = $(shell pkg-config --libs gio-2.0 gtk+-3.0 gdk-pixbuf-xlib-2.0 x11
> xi >xfixes xcursor libcanberra cairo-ft poppler-glib librsvg-2.0)
>BuildRequires: gtk3-devel
...
Please refer to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PkgConfigBuildRequires
for detail.
Please avoid hard-coded path if possile
>%make_install SYSTEMD_LIB_DIR="/usr/lib" LIBDIR="/libexec"
A better way is to use SYSTEMD_SERVICE_DIR ="%{_unitdir}" instead of
SYSTEMD_LIB_DIR="/usr/lib" as it is supported in Makefile.
I don't know whether it is acceptable to code LIBDIR="/libexec" as
LIBDIR="%{_libexecdir}"
The pakage dose not honor the applicable compiler flags
>Makefile:13
>GOBUILD = go build -compiler gccgo -gccgoflags "${LDFLAGS}"
export GOBUILD=$(%gobuild | sed 's|${LDFLAGS:-}|${LDFLAGS}|') could be a quick
fix if it can be built with gc, compile using gccgo may require some tweaks on
flags.
%gobuild evaluates to rpm --eval %gobuild :
%ifnarch ppc64
go build -buildmode pie -compiler gc -tags=rpm_crashtraceback -ldflags
"${LDFLAGS:-} -B 0x$(head -c20 /dev/urandom|od -An -tx1|tr -d ' \n')
-extldflags '-Wl,-z,relro -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld'" -a -v
-x ;
%else
go build -compiler gc -tags=rpm_crashtraceback -ldflags "${LDFLAGS:-} -B
0x$(head -c20 /dev/urandom|od -An -tx1|tr -d ' \n') -extldflags '-Wl,-z,relro
-specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld'" -a -v -x ;
%endif
This package should conform Go packaging
guideline:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Go.Thus,
ExclusiveArch: %{go_arches} should be added; a better way to write build
requires: gcc-go and golang-deepin-go-lib-devel is compiler(gcc-go) and
golang(github.com/linuxdeepin/go-lib), etc ...
--
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 1479073] Review Request: tcl-tclnagios - Library to simplify writing Nagios plugins in Tcl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479073 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@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 1479073] Review Request: tcl-tclnagios - Library to simplify writing Nagios plugins in Tcl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479073
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Hello,
A few thing:
- The Group: tag is not needed. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections
- Similarly, no need for %clean, no need for rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in
%install
- No need for %defattr(-,root,root,-) in %files either
- I don't understand why you define:
%global commit0 1009914f0683f1c7fe9f94ed2cbe895008c5e6d1
%global gittag0 v1.3
%global shortcommit0 %(c=%{commit0}; echo ${c:0:7})
If you package the version 1.3, you don't need all this, just use %{version}:
https://github.com/gitwart/%{shortname}/archive/v%{version}/%{shortname}-%{version}.tar.gz
- You can drop the 'tcl' in both BuildRequires and Requires as the others
dependencies already depends on it.
- The BR "tcl-devel" could be required with pkgconfig: pkgconfig(tcl)
- "make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" should be replaced with the
%make_install macro which takes care of the buildroot
- Thus, "BuildRoot:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)" is not needed
either.
- You have a Rpmlint error:
tcl-tclnagios.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency tcllib
You shouldn't require directly the dependency to tcllib, it's automatically
handled by dnf.
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: "Unknown or generated". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/tcl-tclnagios
/review-tcl-tclnagios/licensecheck.txt
[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
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are vali
[Bug 1479730] Review Request: python-cloudpickle - Extended pickling support for Python objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479730 --- Comment #2 from Lumír Balhar --- Thank you for the review and good advice. New versions of specfile and srpm are available on the same URLs. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21126988 -- 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 1478705] Review Request: deepin-calendar - Calendar for Deepin Desktop Environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1478705 Robin Lee changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Robin Lee --- Approved by cheeselee. -- 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 1479730] Review Request: python-cloudpickle - Extended pickling support for Python objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479730
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
This looks very good. One thing you could change is using the
%{py2_dist/%{py3_dist or python2dist/python3dist macros for your BR. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Requires_and_BuildRequires_with_standardized_names
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
/python-cloudpickle/review-python-cloudpickle/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/lib/python3.6/site-
packages, /usr/lib/python3.6
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpacka
[Bug 1478705] Review Request: deepin-calendar - Calendar for Deepin Desktop Environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1478705 --- Comment #4 from Zamir SUN --- Thanks for all of your review. Updated in-place. Spec URL: https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/deepin-calendar/deepin-calendar.spec SRPM URL: https://zsun.fedorapeople.org/pub/pkgs/deepin-calendar/deepin-calendar-1.0.11-2.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 1470358] Review Request: php-jms-serializer - Library for (de-) serializing data of any complexity
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470358 Remi Collet changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fed...@famillecollet.com --- Comment #1 from Remi Collet --- DEBUG util.py:450: No matching package to install: 'php-JMSParser >= 1.0.0-7' DEBUG util.py:450: No matching package to install: 'php-composer(jms/metadata) >= 1.6.0' DEBUG util.py:450: No matching package to install: 'php-composer(jms/metadata) < 2.0' DEBUG util.py:450: No matching package to install: 'php-composer(jms/parser-lib) < 2.0' DEBUG util.py:450: No matching package to install: 'php-composer(phpcollection/phpcollection) >= 0.5.0' DEBUG util.py:450: No matching package to install: 'php-composer(phpcollection/phpcollection) < 1.0' Missing packages in rawhide... probably we need a successful "compose" -- 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 1476590] Review Request: deepin-daemon - Daemon handling the DDE session settings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476590
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Hello,
A couple of preliminary remarks:
- You shouldn't request golang dependencies directly like this, but instead
use a construct like: golang(import_path). See below.
- You should not use go get …, you should add all the Golang dependencies
directly to your BR. Here's the full list you need:
BuildRequires: golang(github.com/BurntSushi/xgb)
BuildRequires: golang(github.com/BurntSushi/xgbutil)
BuildRequires: golang(github.com/howeyc/fsnotify)
BuildRequires: golang(golang.org/x/image)
BuildRequires: golang(gopkg.in/alecthomas/kingpin.v2)
BuildRequires: golang(github.com/BurntSushi/freetype-go)
BuildRequires: golang(github.com/BurntSushi/graphics-go)
BuildRequires: golang(github.com/axgle/mahonia)
BuildRequires: golang(github.com/msteinert/pam)
BuildRequires: golang(github.com/nfnt/resize)
- Golang is not available on all arches, thus you need an ExclusiveArch:
ExclusiveArch: %{?go_arches:%{go_arches}}%{!?go_arches:%{ix86} x86_64 aarch64
%{arm}}
(Please update to the latest go-srpm-macros from rawhide if you do a Koji build
later, otherwise it will fail on ppc64)
- You shouldn't do BR: golang but instead:
BuildRequires: %{?go_compiler:compiler(go-compiler)}%{!?go_compiler:golang}
- There are numerous Golang dependencies I pulled from your COPR, but you
should make Review Requests for all of them otherwise it makes it difficult to
review such packages.
- You could replace these -devel packages with pkgconfig invocation:
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(gnome-keyring-1)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libsystemd)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(poppler-glib)
--
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 1479685] Update Kubernetes to upstream v1.7.3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479685 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: kubernetes |Update Kubernetes to |- Update to upstream v1.7.3 |upstream v1.7.3 -- 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 1479685] Review Request: kubernetes - Update to upstream v1.7.3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479685 Jan Chaloupka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version||kubernetes-1.7.3-1.fc27 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2017-08-09 07:27:49 --- Comment #2 from Jan Chaloupka --- Spyros, review requests are done for new packages, not updates to newer versions. -- 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 1474033] Review Request: ucx - Communication library implementing high-performance messaging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474033
--- Comment #7 from Andrey Maslennikov ---
Spec URL:
https://gist.github.com/amaslenn/3c847e0bdc063bcbb4b6507b5efbf6b9/raw/9c7187b1aaa516030c08e3216675b4ff3145906d/ucx.spec
SRPM URL:
https://gist.github.com/amaslenn/3c847e0bdc063bcbb4b6507b5efbf6b9/raw/9c7187b1aaa516030c08e3216675b4ff3145906d/ucx-1.2.0-1.fc25.src.rpm
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21125023
Please see details on what was done regarding your first review (sorry for not
posting it with prev comment):
> > %global rel 1
> > %global version 1.3.3274
>
> Completely pointless definition and redefinition of macros for various
> reasons:
>
> 1) You define %rel only to use it once in the spec file.
> 2) You also use %release and not only %rel.
> 3) The "Release" tag implicitly defines %release, so both macros would be the
> same.
> 4) The "Version" tag implicitly defines %version. You redefine %version.
>
> Further, the dist tag is missing:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Simple_versioning
Removed extra assignments, new code looks following:
Name: ucx
Version: 1.2.0
Release: 1%{?dist}
> > %global __check_files %{nil}
>
> Comment/rationale missing!
Removed.
> > %bcond_with valgrind
>
> No-op due to nothing related within the spec file.
Removed.
> > Summary: Unified Communication X
>
> That's only what the UCX acronym stands for. The %description could explain
> that and expand on the > summary, while the %summary could tell a bit more:>
>
> Summary: Communication framework for data centric and high-performance
> applications
Summary/Description for both packages were updated.
> > Group: Development/Libraries
>
> No. The group for system runtime library packages is "System
> Environment/Libraries" for decades. On the contrary, "Development/Libraries"
> is for -devel packages, for example.
Fixed.
> > Source: %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Referencing_Source
Fixed, new value is https://github.com/openucx/%{name}/archive/v1.2.0.tar.gz.
> > ExclusiveArch: aarch64 ppc64le x86_64
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Architecture_Support
Added comment: "UCX currently supports only the following architectures".
> > Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig
> > Requires(postun): /sbin/ldconfig
>
> Implicit and automatic with /sbin/ldconfig scriptlets for a *very* long time.
Removed.
> > %description
> > %description devel
>
> Odd that the -devel package contains the more detailed description. The base
> package also contains more than libraries, lacking an explanation.
Updated. Now -devel package contains only additional info.
> > %build
> > ./contrib/configure-release \
>
> That's a configure script for which you really want to use the %configure
> macro. See "rpm -E %configure" on what it does.
Updated to use %configure.
> > mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf.d/
> > echo %{_libdir} > %{buildroot}%{_sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf.d/ucx.conf
>
> No, %_libdir is in the default search path list for runtime libs.
Removed.
> > %clean
> > rm -rf %{buildroot}
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections
Removed.
> > %files
> > %{_libdir}/lib*.so.*
> > %{_bindir}/uc*
> > %{_datadir}/ucx/perftest/*
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership
Extra files are now removed in %install, fixed issue with file pattern. Is
there anything else to fix here? Please also see below.
> > %{_sysconfdir}/ld.so.conf.d/ucx.conf
>
> Superfluous.
Removed.
> > %files devel
> > %{_includedir}/uc*
> > %{_libdir}/lib*.a
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
-devel package now has 'Provides: %{name}-static = %{version}-%{release}'.
> > %changelog
> > * Mon Jul 3 2017 Andrey Maslennikov 1.3
> > - Fedora package created
>
> Not matching %version.
Fixed.
> > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8693/20688693/build.log
>
> Please look for ways to make build output verbose, so more of the
> compiler/linker calls and options can be seen in the build.log. You may need
> to disable .silent rules or execute Make with V=1, or enable other settings
> in the build framework.
Added V=1 to make command.
Regarding fedora-review tool.
It reports "[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros" complaining on
AC_PROG_LIBTOOL. Is it critical and has to fixed?
Another error it reports is from rpmlint: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath. Is
there any other way to correctly specify the path for .so/executable files?
It also reports mismatch in sizes/checksums of the tarball, which is expected:
current link is for prev release, we will create a new one (v1.2.1) once pass
this review.
Other checks look good.
--
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
___
[Bug 1479707] Review Request: perl-Test-Exit - Test that some code calls exit without terminating testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479707 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova --- Source file is ok Summary is ok License is ok Description is ok URL and Source0 are ok All tests passed BuildRequires are ok $ rpm -qp --requires perl-Test-Exit-0.11-1.fc27.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.26.0) 1 perl(Return::MultiLevel) 1 perl(strict) 1 perl(Test::Builder::Module) >= 0.86 1 perl(warnings) 1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 Binary requires are Ok. $ rpm -qp --provides perl-Test-Exit-0.11-1.fc27.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq -c 1 perl(Test::Exit) = 0.11 1 perl-Test-Exit = 0.11-1.fc27 Binary provides are Ok. $ rpmlint ./perl-Test-Exit* 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint is ok The package looks good. 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 1479730] Review Request: python-cloudpickle - Extended pickling support for Python objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479730 Lumír Balhar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1436807 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1436807 [Bug 1436807] python-doit: python3-doit is missing Python 3 version of executables -- 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 1479730] New: Review Request: python-cloudpickle - Extended pickling support for Python objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479730 Bug ID: 1479730 Summary: Review Request: python-cloudpickle - Extended pickling support for Python objects Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: lbal...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-cloudpickle.spec SRPM URL: https://lbalhar.fedorapeople.org/python-cloudpickle-0.3.1-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: cloudpickle makes it possible to serialize Python constructs not supported by the default pickle module from the Python standard library. cloudpickle is especially useful for cluster computing where Python expressions are shipped over the network to execute on remote hosts, possibly close to the data. Among other things, cloudpickle supports pickling for lambda expressions, functions and classes defined interactively in the __main__ module. Fedora Account System Username: lbalhar Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21125229 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1427634] Review Request: syncthing - Continuous File Synchronization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427634
--- Comment #28 from Fabio Valentini ---
> They are nly shipped in the source tarball and in the binary package, so
> adding it in the Provides in the main package shall be enough.
Done.
> So the license tag should read "MPLv2.0 and MIT and OFL"
Done.
> Why you at least don't use:
> %{_usr}/lib/systemd/user-preset
I've used "%{_prefix}/lib/systemd/user-preset" for now. The missing macro has
already been added in systemd git master [1], so this will be fixed at some
point in the future.
> And why you can't use system-preset?
I can't, because "system-preset" is for system-wide services, and I need a
preset file for user-session services, which are stored in "user-preset".
Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/syncthing.spec
SRPM URL:
https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/syncthing-0.14.35-2.fc26.src.rpm
I've also added "Provides: bundled(X)" for the (currently unused) %with_bundled
case, just for completeness.
[1]: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/6571
--
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 1439893] Review Request: luadec - Lua Decompiler for lua 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 (built for 5.1)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1439893
--- Comment #3 from Ye Cheng <18969068...@163.com> ---
(In reply to Ye Cheng from comment #1)
There are also some compiler warnings in build.log
+ cd ../luadec
gcc -O2 -Wall -DSRCVERSION=\"UNKNOWN\" -I../lua-5.1/src-c -o guess.o
guess.c
guess.c: In function 'luaU_guess_locals':
guess.c:152:3: warning: enumeration value 'OP_LOADK' not handled in switch
[-Wswitch]
switch (o) {
^~
guess.c:152:3: warning: enumeration value 'OP_LOADBOOL' not handled in switch
[-Wswitch]
guess.c:152:3: warning: enumeration value 'OP_LOADNIL' not handled in switch
[-Wswitch]
guess.c:152:3: warning: enumeration value 'OP_GETUPVAL' not handled in switch
[-Wswitch]
guess.c:152:3: warning: enumeration value 'OP_GETGLOBAL' not handled in switch
[-Wswitch]
guess.c:152:3: warning: enumeration value 'OP_NEWTABLE' not handled in switch
[-Wswitch]
guess.c:152:3: warning: enumeration value 'OP_CONCAT' not handled in switch
[-Wswitch]
guess.c:152:3: warning: enumeration value 'OP_JMP' not handled in switch
[-Wswitch]
guess.c:152:3: warning: enumeration value 'OP_TEST' not handled in switch
[-Wswitch]
guess.c:152:3: warning: enumeration value 'OP_CALL' not handled in switch
[-Wswitch]
guess.c:152:3: warning: enumeration value 'OP_TAILCALL' not handled in switch
[-Wswitch]
guess.c:152:3: warning: enumeration value 'OP_FORLOOP' not handled in switch
[-Wswitch]
guess.c:152:3: warning: enumeration value 'OP_FORPREP' not handled in switch
[-Wswitch]
guess.c:152:3: warning: enumeration value 'OP_TFORLOOP' not handled in switch
[-Wswitch]
guess.c:152:3: warning: enumeration value 'OP_SETLIST' not handled in switch
[-Wswitch]
guess.c:152:3: warning: enumeration value 'OP_CLOSE' not handled in switch
[-Wswitch]
guess.c:152:3: warning: enumeration value 'OP_CLOSURE' not handled in switch
[-Wswitch]
guess.c:152:3: warning: enumeration value 'OP_VARARG' not handled in switch
[-Wswitch]
guess.c:216:7: warning: unused variable 'bc' [-Wunused-variable]
int bc = GETARG_Bx(instr);
^~
guess.c:574:25: warning: '%d' directive writing between 1 and 10 bytes into a
region of size between 0 and 6 [-Wformat-overflow=]
sprintf(names,"l_%d_%d",main,i);
^~
guess.c:574:19: note: directive argument in the range [0, 2147483647]
sprintf(names,"l_%d_%d",main,i);
^
guess.c:574:5: note: 'sprintf' output between 6 and 25 bytes into a destination
of size 10
sprintf(names,"l_%d_%d",main,i);
^~~
disassemble.c: In function 'luadec_disassemble':
disassemble.c:80:16: warning: zero-length gnu_printf format string
[-Wformat-zero-length]
sprintf(line,"");
^~
disassemble.c:321:17: warning: zero-length gnu_printf format string
[-Wformat-zero-length]
sprintf(tmp,"");
^~
disassemble.c:331:18: warning: zero-length gnu_printf format string
[-Wformat-zero-length]
sprintf(tmp2,"");
^~
disassemble.c:345:18: warning: zero-length gnu_printf format string
[-Wformat-zero-length]
sprintf(tmp, "");
^~
disassemble.c:391:8: warning: unused variable 'next_is_extraarg'
[-Wunused-variable]
int next_is_extraarg = 1;
^~~~
statement.c: In function 'PrintBreakStatement':
statement.c:118:32: warning: too many arguments for format
[-Wformat-extra-args]
StringBuffer_addPrintf(buff, "do break end\n", stmt->code);
^~~~
statement.c:121:32: warning: too many arguments for format
[-Wformat-extra-args]
StringBuffer_addPrintf(buff, "break\n", stmt->code);
^
luareplace.c: In function 'checkProto':
luareplace.c:178:16: warning: variable 'stop' set but not used
[-Wunused-but-set-variable]
int diff = 0, stop = 0;
^~~~
decompile.c:458:15: warning: variable 'savecurr' set but not used
[-Wunused-but-set-variable]
LogicExp* savecurr;
^~~~
decompile.c: In function 'RawAddAstStatement':
decompile.c:606:8: warning: unused variable 'blockSize' [-Wunused-variable]
int blockSize = block->sub->size;
^
decompile.c:591:17: warning: unused variable 'tail' [-Wunused-variable]
AstStatement* tail = cast(AstStatement*, block->sub->tail);
^~~~
decompile.c: In function 'FlushBoolean':
decompile.c:666:8: warning: unused variable 'whileStart' [-Wunused-variable]
int whileStart = walk->start;
^~
decompile.c: In function 'DeclareLocals':
decompile.c:1220:6: warning: variable 'loopconvert' set but not used
[-Wunused-but-set-variable]
int loopconvert;
^~~
decompile.c: In function 'MakeIndex':
decompile.c:1432:4: warning: enumeration value 'SQUARE_BRACKET' not handled in
switch [-Wswitch]
switch (type) {
^~
decompile.c: In function 'PrintLoopTree':
decompile.c:1702:25: warning: format '%x' expects argument of type 'unsigned
int', but argument 4 has
[Bug 1259416] Review Request: pipewire - Share cameras and other multimedia streams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259416 David King changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from David King --- Looks good to me! -- 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 1479022] Review Request: preeny - Some helpful preload libraries for pwning stuff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479022 --- Comment #5 from Jaroslav Škarvada --- (In reply to Ondřej Lysoněk from comment #4) Thanks for the 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 1479022] Review Request: preeny - Some helpful preload libraries for pwning stuff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479022
Ondřej Lysoněk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Ondřej Lysoněk ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Group: tag should not be present
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections)
= 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]: 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: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 23 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/olysonek/preeny-2/1479022-preeny/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 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 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]: 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 preeny-
debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-Engl
[Bug 1479707] Review Request: perl-Test-Exit - Test that some code calls exit without terminating testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479707 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jples...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jples...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1479707] Review Request: perl-Test-Exit - Test that some code calls exit without terminating testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479707 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1479602 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479602 [Bug 1479602] perl-FFI-CheckLib-0.16 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1479707] New: Review Request: perl-Test-Exit - Test that some code calls exit without terminating testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479707 Bug ID: 1479707 Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-Exit - Test that some code calls exit without terminating testing Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Test-Exit/perl-Test-Exit.spec SRPM URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Test-Exit/perl-Test-Exit-0.11-1.fc27.src.rpm Description: Test::Exit Perl module provides some simple tools for testing code that might call exit(), providing you with the status code without exiting the test file. Fedora Account System Username: ppisar -- 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 1439893] Review Request: luadec - Lua Decompiler for lua 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 (built for 5.1)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1439893 --- Comment #2 from Ye Cheng <18969068...@163.com> --- (In reply to Ye Cheng from comment #1) Sorry for not indicating that this is an unofficial review before pushing the Save Changes bottom. -- 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 1439893] Review Request: luadec - Lua Decompiler for lua 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 (built for 5.1)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1439893
Ye Cheng <18969068...@163.com> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||18969068...@163.com
--- Comment #1 from Ye Cheng <18969068...@163.com> ---
=Issues=
-unnecessary extra sources
>Source1:
>https://github.com/mlnlover11/LuaAssemblyTools/archive/%{commit1}.tar.gz#/LuaAssemblyTools-%{shortcommit1}.tar.gz
>Source2:
>https://github.com/ilua/ilua/archive/%{commit2}.tar.gz#/ilua-%{shortcommit2}.tar.gz
>Source4:
>https://github.com/viruscamp/memwatch/archive/%{commit4}.tar.gz#/memwatch-%{shortcommit4}.tar.gz
They should not be downloaded as they were never used during the process(except
for prep)
-Some requires are missing
>lua-5.1/src/Makefile:98
>linux:
> $(MAKE) all MYCFLAGS=-DLUA_USE_LINUX MYLIBS="-Wl,-E -ldl -lreadline
> -lhistory -lncurses"
BuildRequires: readline-devel, ncurses-devel are needed but missing. It seems
that there is something wrong on building procedure so the runtime require
libreadline.so.7, libhistory.so.7 and libncurses.so.6 wasn't pick up by
rpmbuild.
- Package doesn't obey FHS consistently
>lua-5.1/src/luaconf.h:97
>#define LUA_ROOT "/usr/local/"
>#define LUA_LDIR LUA_ROOT "share/lua/5.1/"
>#define LUA_CDIR LUA_ROOT "lib/lua/5.1/"
It is necessary to patch or sed this file so it can conform FHS.
- License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
LuaAssemblyTools contain a problematic license, but was not used during build
process, nor was contained in the final package, so it should not be
downloaded.
- License breakdown is not shown.
License of luadec is not indicated. Lua-5.1 is using MIT license.
The only GPLv2 portion is memwatch, but it wasnit used during the whole build
and install phase.Its file wasn't included in file section neither(so, I don't
know why it was downloaded.)
- Compiler Flags is not honored.
>lua5.1/src/Makefile:11,99
>CFLAGS= -O2 -Wall $(MYCFLAGS)
> $(MAKE) all MYCFLAGS=-DLUA_USE_LINUX MYLIBS="-Wl,-E -ldl -lreadline -lhistory
> >-lncurses"
>luadec/Makefile:17,38
>CFLAGS= -O2 -Wall -DSRCVERSION=\"$(SRCVERSION)\" $(INCS) $(MYCFLAGS)
>MYCFLAGS=
$RPM_OPT_FLAGS and %{?__global_ldflags} was not honored. %make_build only
expands to usr/bin/make -O %{?_smp_mflags} Perhaps it is necessary to patch
the lua-5.1/src/Makefile to include these flags without overriding the
-DLUA_USE_LINUX MYLIBS flag.
- Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
debuginfo-without-sources, I don't know why this happened, probably due to some
problems in building procedure.
- %check is missing
Upstream shipped some sample lua programs in test directory. Probably some of
them can be compiled and ran to test whether the intepreter is functional.
- Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
Please use install -m755 -p at line 52
- Improper versioning
Release tag should be 1%{dist}
It seems that release tag doesn't comform either simple versioning and complex
versioning scheme.
Please refer https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Versioning_Examples
- Documents not included
Upstream shipped 2 man pages and several htmls on lua language in lua-5.1/doc
directory. They should be included.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
Note: generate during compilation and linked against standalone lua intepreter,
but not included in the final package.
[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]: 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.
[!]: 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 (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "Unknown or generated",
"*No copyright* GPL". 610 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in ~/Downloads/lua/review-
luadec/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[!]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
Note: Not clear about luadec
[-]:
[Bug 1478210] Review Request: openas2 - Java implementation of EDIINT AS2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1478210 --- Comment #8 from Mat Booth --- (In reply to Stuart D Gathman from comment #4) > The conditional macro doesn't help, because it won't build on EL7 (because > of the missing jars). I am building on Fedora 25, hence the bundled > bouncycastle is from Fedora 25 - with all the security patches Fedora sees > fit to apply. But missing any patches applied after your build... :-/ > Because the jars are bundled (copied from /usr/share/java by > xmvn), the resulting rpm installs and runs on el7 - even though it is > labeled fc25. For such EL7 builds you could use a COPR repo, which is not subject to the packaging guidelines as strictly: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1259416] Review Request: pipewire - Share cameras and other multimedia streams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259416 --- Comment #11 from Wim Taymans --- New version here: https://people.freedesktop.org/~wtay/SPECS/pipewire.spec https://people.freedesktop.org/~wtay/SRPMS/pipewire-0.1.3-1.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 1479685] Review Request: kubernetes - Update to upstream v1.7.3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479685 --- Comment #1 from Spyros Trigazis --- SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/work/tasks/3043/21123043/kubernetes-1.7.3-1.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 1479685] New: Review Request: kubernetes - Update to upstream v1.7.3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479685
Bug ID: 1479685
Summary: Review Request: kubernetes - Update to upstream v1.7.3
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
Reporter: strig...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
***This is my first package and I am seeking a sponsor.***
Spec URL:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kubernetes/blob/master/f/kubernetes.spec
SRPM URL:
http://test-strigazi-sharing.web.cern.ch/test-strigazi-sharing/kubernetes-1.7.3-1.fc27.src.rpm
Description: Update to upstream v1.7.3
Fedora Account System Username: strigazi
I did a koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21123040
21123040 build (rawhide, kubernetes-1.7.3-1.fc27.src.rpm) completed
successfully
The dist-git diff can be found here:
https://gitlab.cern.ch/strigazi/fedora-rpm-kubernetes/commit/345d523120bfeaf830e8328539eac14181a492e3.diff
But I also attached a patch formatted here since is is very small.
From 345d523120bfeaf830e8328539eac14181a492e3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Spyros Trigazis
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 17:24:38 +
Subject: [PATCH] Update to upstream v1.7.3
---
.gitignore | 2 +-
kubernetes.spec | 9 ++---
sources | 2 +-
3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index c59e273..dd00c25 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
/contrib-0f5b210.tar.gz
-/kubernetes-922a86c.tar.gz
+/kubernetes-2c2fe6e.tar.gz
diff --git a/kubernetes.spec b/kubernetes.spec
index 3b18d49..b6310f1 100644
--- a/kubernetes.spec
+++ b/kubernetes.spec
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
%global provider_prefix %{provider}.%{provider_tld}/%{project}/%{repo}
%global import_path k8s.io/kubernetes
-%global commit 922a86cfcd65915a9b2f69f3f193b8907d741d9c
+%global commit 2c2fe6e8278a5db2d15a013987b53968c743f2a1
%global shortcommit %(c=%{commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
%global con_providergithub
@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@
%global con_commit 0f5b210313371ff769da24d8264f5a7869c5a3f3
%global con_shortcommit %(c=%{con_commit}; echo ${c:0:7})
-%global kube_version1.7.2
+%global kube_version1.7.3
%global kube_git_versionv%{kube_version}
# Needed otherwise "version_ldflags=$(kube::version_ldflags)" doesn't work
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@
##
Name: kubernetes
Version:%{kube_version}
-Release:4%{?dist}
+Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Container cluster management
License:ASL 2.0
URL:https://%{import_path}
@@ -1146,6 +1146,9 @@ fi
%changelog
+* Tue Aug 08 2017 Spyros Trigazis - 1.7.3-1
+- Update to upstream v1.7.3
+
* Thu Aug 03 2017 Fedora Release Engineering -
1.7.2-4
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Binutils_Mass_Rebuild
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index 8763fad..035d482 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
SHA512 (contrib-0f5b210.tar.gz) =
4cf04c2214d52814d59ad9c276be91261785e4b6a911871637db5e068e6fd0a5de9d1eaee7db112159ce5860f0f339e1396106fcd00a97a16c912772d325ba8f
-SHA512 (kubernetes-922a86c.tar.gz) =
a170f1d71ad045cbf21ed42d5a373ac59fdf81fbf1acfd93a428a1398324859245f46b6c58529e25cc06adc66282a992c62e8dc50c7f47b86f7cf5ea5515a285
+SHA512 (kubernetes-2c2fe6e.tar.gz) =
9297af471892094bb560e334ee5ff709a3144c8b89a9902f7c0dcfefcfed79566de3458b27d5d540ff7452fe17f77742b98191b2dc02e39b897c397458f1eab6
--
2.13.2
--
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 1474033] Review Request: ucx - Communication library implementing high-performance messaging
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474033 --- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt --- For reasons unknown, you've missed various issues mentioned in comment 1. Since you haven't commented on any of the findings and since your spec %changelog is still wrong and hasn't been updated either, it's hard to tell what you've worked on. Please revisit comment 1. Also please do take a look at running the fedora-review tool against this ticket. -- 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
