[Bug 1485975] Review Request: rubygem-activestorage - Attach cloud and local files in Rails applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485975

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Ok, 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 1485975] Review Request: rubygem-activestorage - Attach cloud and local files in Rails applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485975



--- Comment #2 from Vít Ondruch  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
> Hello,
> 
> Shouldn't you add:
> 
> Requires:   ruby(rubygems)
> Provides:   rubygem(%{gem_name}) = %{version}-%{release}
> 
> It seems to me it's needed for other packages to be able to depend on
> rubygem(activestorage).

These are autogenerated:

~~~
$ rpm -qp --requires
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8047/21518047/rubygem-activestorage-0.1-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
ruby(rubygems)
rubygem(actionpack) >= 5.1
rubygem(activejob) >= 5.1
rubygem(activerecord) >= 5.1
rubygem(activesupport) >= 5.1

$ rpm -qp --provides
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8047/21518047/rubygem-activestorage-0.1-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
rubygem(activestorage) = 0.1-1
rubygem-activestorage = 0.1-1.fc28
~~~

Guidelines [1] mention this as well.

Thx for the review!


[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#RubyGems

-- 
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 1475750] Review Request: golang-bazil-fuse - Go library for writing FUSE userspace filesystems

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475750



--- Comment #8 from Scott Talbert  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #7)
> > - What is the purpose of the unit-test-devel subpackage?  I'm not sure I
>   understand the usefulness of packaging the unit tests.
> 
> It is how Golang libraries are supposed to be packaged. See
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/search?match=glob=rpm=*unit-
> test-devel* All of these Golang libraries SPECs are generated by Gofed, the
> script recommended in Golang Draft Guidelines.

Strange.  I just don't see the purpose, but OK.

> > - Package doesn't own /usr/share/gocode/src/bazil.org directory.
> 
> No, because this directory is not specific to this package, it is shared
> with other Go project from Bazil. If I were to package golang-bazil-zipfs
> for example, I would also use /usr/share/gocode/src/bazil.org. The only
> specific directory are the ones one level below, for example
> /usr/share/gocode/src/bazil.org/fuse or /usr/share/gocode/src/bazil.org/zipfs

I see your point, but some package has to own the bazil.org directory.  It
appears that the 'golang' package owns the github.com directory[1] and a few
others, so probably it should own the bazil.org directory too?  Perhaps you can
file a bug or submit a PR for that?
[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang/blob/master/f/golang.spec#_407

-- 
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 1485591] Review Request: R-base64enc - Tools for base64 encoding

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485591



--- Comment #8 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
Are they arch or noarch? Because the libR.so dep from the shared library should
pull in R-core automatically as a Requires (try installing from the copr).

-- 
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 750009] Review Request: libburn1 - Library for reading, mastering and writing optical discs

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750009



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
libburn1-1.4.6-5.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-b45f479d6b

-- 
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 1406958] Review Request: python-ipykernel - IPython Kernel for Jupyter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1406958

Mukundan Ragavan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2017-08-28 18:35:53



-- 
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 1379090] Review Request: python-qtconsole - Jupyter Qt console

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379090

Mukundan Ragavan  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
Last Closed||2017-08-28 18:34:46



-- 
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 1475817] Review Request: golang-github-jlaffaye-ftp - A FTP client package for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475817

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-08-28 18:22:22



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-jlaffaye-ftp-0-0.1.20170721git769512c.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 1473314] Review Request: rclone - rsync for cloud storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473314
Bug 1473314 depends on bug 1475817, which changed state.

Bug 1475817 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-jlaffaye-ftp - A FTP client 
package for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475817

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1473314] Review Request: rclone - rsync for cloud storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473314
Bug 1473314 depends on bug 1475763, which changed state.

Bug 1475763 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-Unknwon-goconfig - 
Configuration file parser for the Go Programming Language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475763

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1473314] Review Request: rclone - rsync for cloud storage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473314
Bug 1473314 depends on bug 1475791, which changed state.

Bug 1475791 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-VividCortex-ewma - 
Exponentially Weighted Moving Average algorithms for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475791

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1475763] Review Request: golang-github-Unknwon-goconfig - Configuration file parser for the Go Programming Language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475763

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-08-28 18:22:12



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-Unknwon-goconfig-0-0.1.20161121git87a46d9.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 1475791] Review Request: golang-github-VividCortex-ewma - Exponentially Weighted Moving Average algorithms for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475791

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-08-28 18:22:18



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-VividCortex-ewma-1.1.1-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25
stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.

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

[Bug 1476201] Review Request: qdirstat - Qt-based directory statistics

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476201

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-08-28 18:22:03



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
qdirstat-1.4-3.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 1404895] Review Request: partclone - File System Clone Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1404895

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2017-08-20 14:29:02 |2017-08-28 18:21:44



--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System  ---
partclone-0.3.5a-3.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 1482205] Review Request: syncthing-gtk - Syncthing GTK+ GUI

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1482205

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-08-28 18:21:55



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
syncthing-gtk-0.9.2.5-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

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

[Bug 1474958] Review Request: lammps - Large-scale Atomic/ Molecular Massively Parallel Simulator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474958

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-08-28 18:21:52



--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System  ---
lammps-20170811-5.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 1479022] Review Request: preeny - Some helpful preload libraries for pwning stuff

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479022



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
preeny-0.1-3.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 1480794] Review Request: ocaml-cudf - Format for describing upgrade scenarios

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480794

Ben Rosser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1486068




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486068
[Bug 1486068] Review Request: ocaml-dose3 - Framework for managing
distribution packages and dependencies
-- 
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 1486068] Review Request: ocaml-dose3 - Framework for managing distribution packages and dependencies

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486068

Ben Rosser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1480794




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480794
[Bug 1480794] Review Request: ocaml-cudf - Format for describing upgrade
scenarios
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1183826] Review Request: ocaml-dose3 - a framework for managing distribution packages and their dependencies

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183826

Ben Rosser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||rosser@gmail.com
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Last Closed||2017-08-28 18:12:06



--- Comment #4 from Ben Rosser  ---


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1486068 ***

-- 
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 1185099] Review Request: opam - A source-based package manager for OCaml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185099
Bug 1185099 depends on bug 1183826, which changed state.

Bug 1183826 Summary: Review Request: ocaml-dose3 - a framework for managing 
distribution packages and their dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183826

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE



-- 
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 1486068] Review Request: ocaml-dose3 - Framework for managing distribution packages and dependencies

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486068

Ben Rosser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1185099
 CC||j...@recoil.org



--- Comment #1 from Ben Rosser  ---
*** Bug 1183826 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185099
[Bug 1185099] Review Request: opam - A source-based package manager for
OCaml
-- 
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 1185099] Review Request: opam - A source-based package manager for OCaml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185099

Ben Rosser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1486068




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486068
[Bug 1486068] Review Request: ocaml-dose3 - Framework for managing
distribution packages and dependencies
-- 
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 1486068] New: Review Request: ocaml-dose3 - Framework for managing distribution packages and dependencies

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486068

Bug ID: 1486068
   Summary: Review Request: ocaml-dose3 - Framework for managing
distribution packages and dependencies
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: rosser@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/opam/ocaml-dose3.spec
SRPM URL:
https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/opam/ocaml-dose3-5.0.1-1.fc26.src.rpm
Description:

Dose3 is a framework made of several OCaml libraries for managing
distribution packages and their dependencies.

Though not tied to any particular distribution, dose3 constitutes a pool of
libraries which enable analyzing packages coming from various distributions.

Besides basic functionalities for querying and setting package properties,
dose3 also implements algorithms for solving more complex problems
(monitoring package evolutions, correct and complete dependency resolution,
repository-wide uninstallability checks).

Fedora Account System Username: tc01

I built the dose3 tools as well as the library. I'm not sure if the tools
package should be called ocaml-dose3-tools or just dose3-tools; since the
upstream name of the project is "dose3" and since the tools are all
applications that depend on the library, I opted for dose3-tools... but I'm not
sure that was the right choice.

Note that this package doesn't seem to support parallel build.

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

[Bug 1174036] Review Request: ocaml-re - OCaml regular expression library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036

Ben Rosser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1486068




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486068
[Bug 1486068] Review Request: ocaml-dose3 - Framework for managing
distribution packages and dependencies
-- 
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 1486068] Review Request: ocaml-dose3 - Framework for managing distribution packages and dependencies

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486068

Ben Rosser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1174036




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174036
[Bug 1174036] Review Request: ocaml-re - OCaml regular expression library
-- 
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 1486067] New: Review Request: python-rebulk - ReBulk is a python library that performs advanced searches in strings

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486067

Bug ID: 1486067
   Summary: Review Request: python-rebulk - ReBulk is a python
library that performs advanced searches in strings
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: j.orti.alca...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://jorti.fedorapeople.org/python-rebulk/python-rebulk.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jorti.fedorapeople.org/python-rebulk/python-rebulk-0.9.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
Description: ReBulk is a python library that performs advanced searches in
strings that would be hard to implement using re module or String methods only.

It includes some features like Patterns, Match, Rule that allows developers to
build a custom and complex string matcher using a readable and extendable API.

Fedora Account System Username: jorti

-- 
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 1481912] Review Request: jbuilder - A composable build system for OCaml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1481912



--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jbuilder

-- 
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 1481912] Review Request: jbuilder - A composable build system for OCaml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1481912



--- Comment #5 from Ben Rosser  ---
Great, thanks for the review!

> - Bump version to beta12? https://github.com/janestreet/jbuilder/releases

Yes, fortunately beta12 came out soon after I posted the review request; there
were not many changes upstream. I have updated the spec with this (and your
other comments) and will import beta12. For posterity:

Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/jbuilder/jbuilder.spec
SRPM URL:
https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/jbuilder/jbuilder-1.0-0.3.beta12.fc26.src.rpm

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

[Bug 1485566] Review Request: libmseed - A C library framework for manipulating and managing SEED data records

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485566



--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libmseed

-- 
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 1486055] Review Request: libqxp - library for import of QuarkXPress documents

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486055

David Tardon  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||dtar...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from David Tardon  ---
Copr builds:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/dtardon/pending-review/build/594824/

-- 
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 1486055] New: Review Request: libqxp - library for import of QuarkXPress documents

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486055

Bug ID: 1486055
   Summary: Review Request: libqxp - library for import of
QuarkXPress documents
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: dtar...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://dtardon.fedorapeople.org/rpm/libqxp.spec
SRPM URL: https://dtardon.fedorapeople.org/rpm/libqxp-0.0.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
Description: libqxp is a library providing ability to interpret and import
QuarkXPress documents into various applications.
Fedora Account System Username: dtardon

This will be a dependency of libreoffice 6.0.

-- 
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 1485046] Review Request: purple-mattermost - Pidgin protocol plugin to connect to Mattermost

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485046



--- Comment #2 from Ben Rosser  ---
Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/misc/mattermost/purple-mattermost.spec
SRPM URL:
https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/misc/mattermost/purple-mattermost-1.1-4.20170805git4524538.fc26.src.rpm

- License is actually GPLv3+, not GPLv3, fix tag.
- Simplify github sourceurls.

-- 
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 1485907] Review Request: rubygem-rack-attack - Block & throttle abusive requests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485907



--- Comment #2 from František Dvořák  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
> 
> The Group: tag is not used in Fedora. See:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections
> 

You're right, it can be removed. (I've been using it just for cosmetics - it
has been in gem2rpm templates yet, but it is now removed since F26).

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 1485566] Review Request: libmseed - A C library framework for manipulating and managing SEED data records

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485566



--- Comment #5 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
make was removed from the minimal buildroot though:
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/490 I don't really know where this
buildroot is defined though, so better to be explicit.

-- 
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 1297852] Review Request: python-azure-sdk - Microsoft Azure SDK for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297852

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|williamjmore...@gmail.com   |zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Hello,


 - The Group: tag is not needed on Fedora. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections

 - You could use the %{py2_dist/%{py3_dist macros for your dependencies. See: 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Requires_and_BuildRequires_with_standardized_names

i.e. like this:

BuildRequires:  python-setuptools
BuildRequires:  python2-devel
# Needed to build documentation
%if 0%{?_with_doc}
BuildRequires:  %{py2_dist pip}
BuildRequires:  %{py2_dist sphinx}
BuildRequires:  %{py2_dist sphinx-rtd-theme}
%endif
%if 0%{?_with_python3}
BuildRequires:  python3-devel
%endif
# Needed for tests
%if 0%{?_with_tests}
BuildRequires:  %{py2_dist certifi}
BuildRequires:  %{py2_dist chardet}
BuildRequires:  %{py2_dist coverage}
BuildRequires:  %{py2_dist enum34}
BuildRequires:  %{py2_dist isodate}
BuildRequires:  %{py2_dist keyring}
BuildRequires:  %{py2_dist msrest}
BuildRequires:  %{py2_dist msrestazure}
BuildRequires:  %{py2_dist nose}
BuildRequires:  %{py2_dist oauthlib}
BuildRequires:  %{py2_dist requests}
BuildRequires:  %{py2_dist requests-oauthlib}
BuildRequires:  %{py2_dist vcrpy} >= 1.8.0
%if 0%{?_with_python3}
BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist certifi}
BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist chardet}
BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist coverage}
BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist isodate}
BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist keyring}
BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist msrest}
BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist msrestazure}
BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist nose}
BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist oauthlib}
BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist requests}
BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist requests-oauthlib}
BuildRequires:  %{py3_dist vcrpy} >= 1.8.0
%endif
%endif
BuildArch:  noarch

%description
%{common_description}


%package -n python2-%{srcname}
Summary:%{common_summary}
Requires:   pyOpenSSL
Requires:   %{py2_dist msrest}
Requires:   %{py2_dist msrestazure}
Requires:   %{py2_dist requests}
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python2-%{srcname}}

%description -n python2-%{srcname}
%{common_description}


%if 0%{?_with_python3}
%package -n python3-%{srcname}
Summary:%{common_summary}
Requires:   %{py3_dist msrest}
Requires:   %{py3_dist msrestazure}
Requires:   %{py3_dist pyOpenSSL}
Requires:   %{py3_dist requests}
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}}

 - You should use the %make_build macro instead of make alone

%make_build -C doc/ html




Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated".
 4432 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/python-azure-sdk/review-python-azure-
 sdk/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 102400 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported 

[Bug 1486026] New: Review Request: python-pysrt - Library used to edit or create SubRip files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486026

Bug ID: 1486026
   Summary: Review Request: python-pysrt - Library used to edit or
create SubRip files
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: j.orti.alca...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://jorti.fedorapeople.org/python-pysrt/python-pysrt.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jorti.fedorapeople.org/python-pysrt/python-pysrt-1.1.1-1.fc26.src.rpm
Description: pysrt is a Python library used to edit or create SubRip files
Fedora Account System Username: jorti

-- 
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 1485720] Review Request: golang-github-linuxdeepin-go-x11-client - A X11 client Go bindings for Deepin Desktop Environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485720



--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-linuxdeepin-go-x11-client

-- 
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 1480794] Review Request: ocaml-cudf - Format for describing upgrade scenarios

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480794



--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ocaml-cudf

-- 
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 1480794] Review Request: ocaml-cudf - Format for describing upgrade scenarios

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480794



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
You're right I've missed it, I usually look at the %global at the beginning of
the file and didn't see the one in the middle of it.

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

[Bug 1480794] Review Request: ocaml-cudf - Format for describing upgrade scenarios

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480794



--- Comment #3 from Ben Rosser  ---
Thanks for the review!

I don't wish to sound ungrateful, but I think you missed something:

> %define libname %(echo %{name} | sed -e 's/^ocaml-//')

It is preferred to use "global" over "define" for this sort of thing:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define

However, the OCaml package template (rpmdev-newspec -t ocaml), like most of
those templates, is sadly out of date and still uses %define, and I forgot to
change it before submitting the first batch of reviews. I meant to update this
submission too, but didn't get around to it before you reviewed the package. :)

I will fix this (and the other things you mentioned) on import. But I wanted to
say something here so you're aware that this is something to look for in other
package reviews.

Anyway, thanks again.

-- 
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 1482202] Review Request: dbus-broker - Linux D-Bus Message Broker

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1482202



--- Comment #11 from Tom Gundersen  ---
I'll update to use %meson and pkgconfig(), and resubmit once we have the next
upstream release. Thanks for the feedback!

-- 
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 1485907] Review Request: rubygem-rack-attack - Block & throttle abusive requests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485907

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



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


The Group: tag is not used in Fedora. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections


Otherwise, the package is good, it is accepted.

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". 30 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/rubygem-rack-
 attack/review-rubygem-rack-attack/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
 /usr/share/gems/doc
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
 Note: Package contains font files
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from 

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

[bugzilla]

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2017-08-22 11:20:52 |2017-08-28 12:20:28



--- Comment #53 from Fedora Update System  ---
fedrepo-req-1.6.0-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1441728] Review Request: cld2 - Compact Language Detector 2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441728



--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System  ---
cld2-0-0.9.20150821gitb56fa78.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 1479022] Review Request: preeny - Some helpful preload libraries for pwning stuff

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1479022

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2017-08-14 06:35:19 |2017-08-28 12:19:34



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
preeny-0.1-3.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 1478358] Review Request: php-sebastian-diff2 - Diff implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1478358

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-08-28 12:18:55



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-phpunit-diff-1.4.3-3.fc26, php-sebastian-comparator2-2.0.2-1.fc26,
php-sebastian-diff2-2.0.1-1.fc26, phpunit6-6.3.0-1.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 1475961] Review Request: cmrt - C for Media Runtime

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475961



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
cmrt-1.0.6-4.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 1485975] Review Request: rubygem-activestorage - Attach cloud and local files in Rails applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485975

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,

Shouldn't you add:

Requires:   ruby(rubygems)
Provides:   rubygem(%{gem_name}) = %{version}-%{release}

It seems to me it's needed for other packages to be able to depend on
rubygem(activestorage).

No issue besides that. I'll accept the package once I've got your answer on
this.


Package Review
==

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


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 40 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/rubygem-activestorage/review-rubygem-
 activestorage/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
 /usr/share/gems/doc
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[x]: Avoid 

[Bug 1484846] Review Request: erlang-hyper - An implementation of the HyperLogLog algorithm in Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484846



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/erlang-hyper

-- 
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 1484843] Review Request: erlang-chronos - Timer utility for Erlang tests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484843



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/erlang-chronos

-- 
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 1484835] Review Request: erlang-stdlib2 - Erlang stdlib extensions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484835



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/erlang-stdlib2

-- 
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 1485720] Review Request: golang-github-linuxdeepin-go-x11-client - A X11 client Go bindings for Deepin Desktop Environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485720

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
All 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 1484843] Review Request: erlang-chronos - Timer utility for Erlang tests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484843

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



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


The Group: tag is not used in Fedora. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections

Otherwise, everything is good, package accepted.


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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 12 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/erlang-chronos/review-erlang-
 chronos/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should 

[Bug 1484846] Review Request: erlang-hyper - An implementation of the HyperLogLog algorithm in Erlang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484846

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



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

Same as before, it would be nice to include comments or upstream bug numbers
for your patches.

Otherwise all good, package accepted.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 17 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/erlang-hyper/review-erlang-
 hyper/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 20480 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 

[Bug 1485975] New: Review Request: rubygem-activestorage - Attach cloud and local files in Rails applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485975

Bug ID: 1485975
   Summary: Review Request: rubygem-activestorage - Attach cloud
and local files in Rails applications
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: vondr...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/vondruch/public_git/rubygem-activestorage.git/plain/rubygem-activestorage.spec?id=5dd2285d04d362137e291fb6e493a7724c990581
SRPM URL:
http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-activestorage-0.1-1.fc28.src.rpm
Description: Attach cloud and local files in Rails applications.
Fedora Account System Username: vondruch

Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21518046

-- 
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 1485720] Review Request: golang-github-linuxdeepin-go-x11-client - A X11 client Go bindings for Deepin Desktop Environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485720



--- Comment #4 from sensor@gmail.com ---
https://github.com/FZUG/repo/commit/d1b8d290160f41993293a54c185ecd6deafaee01

Removed :)

-- 
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 1485458] Review Request: orangefs - parallel network file system ( formerly PVFS2)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485458

Martin Brandenburg  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)



--- Comment #4 from Martin Brandenburg  ---
Thanks Alexander for your help.

I do not have a sponsor yet.

I'll leave the version as is until I either get more specific advice.

Upstream copied the LMDB sources because it was easier to do that than
deal with the many different distributions which may not package LMDB.

Really that's not ideal though.  I will add the ability to link against
an external LMDB upstream, so we can use that.

Most of the macro-in-comment warnings stem from aborted support for
part of OrangeFS called the usrint, which is a libc interposer which can
be used to give applications support for accessing an OrangeFS volume
without kernel support.

I have disabled it because it does not build on some exotic
architectures due to missing syscalls.  I'm not sure we have the ability
to fix this without the hardware.

Is it appropriate to enable it on some architectures and not the others?
Several of our utility programs now rely on it.


Referenced Bugs:

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

[Bug 1484835] Review Request: erlang-stdlib2 - Erlang stdlib extensions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484835

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |POST
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Eureka! The test fails because my /tmp/ dir is totally empty but the test
expects some files in return. I had to "touch" a file in %prep to make it work.

Anyway, the review:

 - You should query upstream for a LICENSE file.

 - You should add comments above your patch, explaining what they do, or
better,  link to an upstream bug report.

None of this is blocking, so the package is accepted.


Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "ISC", "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 29 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/erlang-stdlib2/review-erlang-
 stdlib2/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: 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]: 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.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package 

[Bug 1481630] Review Request: VirtualBox-guest-additions - VirtualBox Guest Additions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1481630



--- Comment #15 from Sergio Monteiro Basto  ---
(In reply to Hans de Goede from comment #11)
> (In reply to Sergio Monteiro Basto from comment #7)
> > Hi, 
> > After tweak fedora-review [1] I needed 2 patches [2] , I see one issue , the
> > provides of libGL.so.1()(64bit) [3] can we remove this rpm provides ? 
> > Regards.
> > 
> > [1] 
> > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sergiomb/builds_for_Stable_Releases/
> > build/591889/
> 
> This link does not work.

Link is here :
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sergiomb/builds_for_Stable_Releases/package/fedora-review/
 

> 
> > [2] 
> > 0001-don-t-verify-certificates-of-ssl-connections.patch
> > 0001-use-mock-old-chroot-to-not-break-some-scripts.patch
> 
> The pkg builds fine in mock for me, also I don't see these patches anywhere.

Patches are here :
http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/sergiomb/builds_for_Stable_Releases/fedora-review.git/tree/

But, patch 0001 we don't need anymore, because now you change https to http in
source0 .
The patch 002 if a problem in my system and kde4 in general that /etc/localtime
wasn't a symlink . 

Cheers.

-- 
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 1484835] Review Request: erlang-stdlib2 - Erlang stdlib extensions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484835

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



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


Thank again for your reviews.

The Group: tag is not used in Fedora. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections


I've got tests failures in Mock:

module 's2_sh'
  s2_sh: cp_test...[0.002 s] ok
  s2_sh: ls_test...*failed*
in function s2_sh:ls_test/0 (src/s2_sh.erl, line 62)
**error:{badmatch,[]}
  output:<<"">>
  s2_sh: ls_l_test...*failed*
in function s2_sh:ls_l_test/0 (src/s2_sh.erl, line 68)
**error:{badmatch,[]}
  output:<<"">>

Hence the build fails afterwards. I'm gonna take a look at your two other
packages and see this one later.

-- 
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 1478689] Review Request: deepin-movie - Deepin Movie based on QtAV

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1478689



--- Comment #4 from Zamir SUN  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3)
> @Zamir or Mosquito: propose this package to RPMFusion.

Yes, thanks. We will do this soon. As this is an application instead of core
component of the Deepin Desktop Environment, it's not on our priority list
since we are all busy with dayjob recently.

-- 
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 1481630] Review Request: VirtualBox-guest-additions - VirtualBox Guest Additions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1481630



--- Comment #14 from Hans de Goede  ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #13)
> > BuildRequires:  kBuild >= 0.1.9998
> > BuildRequires:  desktop-file-utils makeself yasm
> > BuildRequires:  boost-devel
> > BuildRequires:  libXcomposite-devel libXmu-devel libXrandr-devel libXt-devel
> > BuildRequires:  mesa-libEGL-devel mesa-libGL-devel mesa-libGLU-devel
> > BuildRequires:  pam-devel zlib-devel
> 
> Could you please break out all the BuildRequires onto newlines? It makes it
> easier to review...

Ok, I've updated the .spec and the -3 src.rpm with this change, I've not bumped
the release given the very minor nature of this change.

-- 
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 1475850] Review Request: golang-github-rfjakob-eme - Encrypt-Mix-Encrypt for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475850



--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Thank you for all your reviews!

-- 
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 1475850] Review Request: golang-github-rfjakob-eme - Encrypt-Mix-Encrypt for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475850

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov  ---
REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines (it was generated by gofed
utility)
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (MIT,
https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
as %license.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible as much as it applies to
autogenerated stuff (just use gofed to regenerate it).
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum v1.1.tar.gz eme-1.1.tar.gz 
f45d64484e7bdd6545a1a8d21471238aad340e195d904d848d742f9f49327e33  v1.1.tar.gz
f45d64484e7bdd6545a1a8d21471238aad340e195d904d848d742f9f49327e33 
eme-1.1.tar.gz
Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No C/C++ header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so)
in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.


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 1485907] Review Request: rubygem-rack-attack - Block & throttle abusive requests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485907

František Dvořák  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1483986




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483986
[Bug 1483986] rOCCI-server-v2.0.0.beta.1 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 1450144] Review Request: rubygem-yell - Yell - Your Extensible Logging Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450144

František Dvořák  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|1483986 |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483986
[Bug 1483986] rOCCI-server-v2.0.0.beta.1 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 1450144] Review Request: rubygem-yell - Yell - Your Extensible Logging Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450144

František Dvořák  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1483986




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483986
[Bug 1483986] rOCCI-server-v2.0.0.beta.1 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 1475850] Review Request: golang-github-rfjakob-eme - Encrypt-Mix-Encrypt for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475850

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||lemen...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov  ---
I'll review it

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

[Bug 1475863] Review Request: golang-github-xanzy-ssh-agent - Create a ssh-agent on any type of OS from any Go application

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475863

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov  ---
REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines (it was generated by gofed
utility)
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (ASL
2.0, https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
as %license.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible as much as it applies to
autogenerated stuff (just use gofed to regenerate it).
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum ssh-agent-ba9c9e3.tar.gz*
6c9fd37e4a401ac431ff174fa4bd3df8a81d652ac96b627a58a3e13d06b73bcb 
ssh-agent-ba9c9e3.tar.gz
6c9fd37e4a401ac431ff174fa4bd3df8a81d652ac96b627a58a3e13d06b73bcb 
ssh-agent-ba9c9e3.tar.gz.1
Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: 

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No C/C++ header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so)
in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.


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 1475863] Review Request: golang-github-xanzy-ssh-agent - Create a ssh-agent on any type of OS from any Go application

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475863

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||lemen...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov  ---
I'll review it

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

[Bug 1475846] Review Request: golang-github-nsf-termbox-go - A minimalistic API which allows programmers to write text-based user interfaces

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475846

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov  ---
REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines (it was generated by gofed
utility)
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (MIT,
https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
as %license.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible as much as it applies to
autogenerated stuff (just use gofed to regenerate it).
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum termbox-go-4ed959e.tar.gz*
bca54bd0555322b1ab94aff97dac01e2fe8efa1f7ce100bc5c7486f6c976fe0a 
termbox-go-4ed959e.tar.gz
bca54bd0555322b1ab94aff97dac01e2fe8efa1f7ce100bc5c7486f6c976fe0a 
termbox-go-4ed959e.tar.gz.1
Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No C/C++ header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so)
in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.


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 1475846] Review Request: golang-github-nsf-termbox-go - A minimalistic API which allows programmers to write text-based user interfaces

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475846

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||lemen...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov  ---
I'll review it

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

[Bug 1475832] Review Request: golang-github-ncw-dropbox-sdk-go-unofficial - An unofficial Go SDK for integrating with the Dropbox API v2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475832

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov  ---
REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines (it was generated by gofed
utility)
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (MIT,
https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
as %license.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible as much as it applies to
autogenerated stuff (just use gofed to regenerate it).
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum dropbox-sdk-go-unofficial-5d9f46f.tar.gz*
38106846bebbe837ab06cb7a3840c0494f7efc6aee32d6d9777b8558b845f1e7 
dropbox-sdk-go-unofficial-5d9f46f.tar.gz
38106846bebbe837ab06cb7a3840c0494f7efc6aee32d6d9777b8558b845f1e7 
dropbox-sdk-go-unofficial-5d9f46f.tar.gz.1
Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No C/C++ header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so)
in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.


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 1481630] Review Request: VirtualBox-guest-additions - VirtualBox Guest Additions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1481630



--- Comment #13 from Neal Gompa  ---
> BuildRequires:  kBuild >= 0.1.9998
> BuildRequires:  desktop-file-utils makeself yasm
> BuildRequires:  boost-devel
> BuildRequires:  libXcomposite-devel libXmu-devel libXrandr-devel libXt-devel
> BuildRequires:  mesa-libEGL-devel mesa-libGL-devel mesa-libGLU-devel
> BuildRequires:  pam-devel zlib-devel

Could you please break out all the BuildRequires onto newlines? It makes it
easier to 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 1475841] Review Request: golang-github-ncw-go-acd - Go library for accessing the Amazon Cloud Drive

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475841

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



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

[Bug 1475832] Review Request: golang-github-ncw-dropbox-sdk-go-unofficial - An unofficial Go SDK for integrating with the Dropbox API v2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475832

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||lemen...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov  ---
I'll review it

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

[Bug 1475841] Review Request: golang-github-ncw-go-acd - Go library for accessing the Amazon Cloud Drive

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475841



--- Comment #5 from Peter Lemenkov  ---
REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines (it was generated by gofed
utility)
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (ISC,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license).
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
as %license.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible as much as it applies to
autogenerated stuff (just use gofed to regenerate it).
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum go-acd-96a49aa.tar.gz*
b6ba3091f8f5b30f9fabdf83601aeab55afcc77f974a5ee081f75b4f3a521c56 
go-acd-96a49aa.tar.gz
b6ba3091f8f5b30f9fabdf83601aeab55afcc77f974a5ee081f75b4f3a521c56 
go-acd-96a49aa.tar.gz.1
Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No C/C++ header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files without a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so)
in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.


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 1485720] Review Request: golang-github-linuxdeepin-go-x11-client - A X11 client Go bindings for Deepin Desktop Environment

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485720



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
You bypassed test by adding ||: , why is that? The tests do not fail even
without it.

%if ! 0%{?gotest:1}
%global gotest go test
%endif

%gotest %{import_path}



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". 44 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/golang-github-
 linuxdeepin-go-x11-client/review-golang-github-linuxdeepin-
 go-x11-client/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/linuxdeepin
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gocode/src,
 /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/linuxdeepin, /usr/share/gocode,
 /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: 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 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in golang-
 github-linuxdeepin-go-x11-client-devel , golang-github-linuxdeepin-
 go-x11-client-unit-test-devel
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages 

[Bug 1481630] Review Request: VirtualBox-guest-additions - VirtualBox Guest Additions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1481630



--- Comment #11 from Hans de Goede  ---
(In reply to Sergio Monteiro Basto from comment #7)
> Hi, 
> After tweak fedora-review [1] I needed 2 patches [2] , I see one issue , the
> provides of libGL.so.1()(64bit) [3] can we remove this rpm provides ? 
> Regards.
> 
> [1] 
> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sergiomb/builds_for_Stable_Releases/
> build/591889/

This link does not work.

> [2] 
> 0001-don-t-verify-certificates-of-ssl-connections.patch
> 0001-use-mock-old-chroot-to-not-break-some-scripts.patch

The pkg builds fine in mock for me, also I don't see these patches anywhere.

> 
> 
> [3]
> 
> Provides
> 
> VirtualBox-guest-additions:
> VirtualBox-guest-additions
> VirtualBox-guest-additions(x86-64)
> libGL.so.1()(64bit)

I've fixed this for the next release.

-- 
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 1481630] Review Request: VirtualBox-guest-additions - VirtualBox Guest Additions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1481630



--- Comment #12 from Hans de Goede  ---
Here is a new version:

Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~jwrdegoede/VirtualBox-guest-additions.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/~jwrdegoede/VirtualBox-guest-additions-5.1.26-3.fc27.src.rpm

Changelog:

* Mon Aug 28 2017 Hans de Goede  - 5.1.26-3
- Put the libGL.so.1 replacement libs and VBoxOGLRun scripts in an -ogl
  subpackage, so that people can install both the i686 and x86_64 versions.
- Filter out libGL.so.1 provides

-- 
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 1435230] Review Request: python-ufo2ft - A bridge from UFOs to FontTool objects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435230



--- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-ufo2ft

-- 
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 1484331] Review Request: python-incremental - Incremental is a small library that versions your Python projects.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484331



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-incremental

-- 
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 1475841] Review Request: golang-github-ncw-go-acd - Go library for accessing the Amazon Cloud Drive

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475841

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||lemen...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov  ---
I'll review it

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

[Bug 1450144] Review Request: rubygem-yell - Yell - Your Extensible Logging Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450144



--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-yell

-- 
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 1481876] Review Request: python-pytest-shutil - A goodie-bag of unix shell and environment tools for py.test

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1481876



--- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pytest-shutil

-- 
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 1483296] Review Request: deepin-dock - Deepin desktop environment Dock module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483296



--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/deepin-dock

-- 
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 1485924] New: Review Request: php-phpunit-selenium - Selenium RC integration for PHPUnit

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485924

Bug ID: 1485924
   Summary: Review Request: php-phpunit-selenium - Selenium RC
integration for PHPUnit
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: fed...@famillecollet.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/phpunit/php-phpunit-selenium.git/plain/php-phpunit-selenium.spec?id=5a485d4c73e4795afa6baf8104c740f0d3f3d5ec
SRPM URL:
http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-phpunit-selenium-4.1.0-1.remi.src.rpm
Description: 
This package contains a Selenium2TestCase class that can be used to run
end-to-end tests against Selenium 2.


Fedora Account System Username: remi

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

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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #15 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/deepin-api

-- 
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 1485494] Review Request: ghc-microlens - A tiny lens library with no dependencies

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485494



--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-microlens

-- 
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 1485492] Review Request: ghc-email-validate - Email address validation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485492



--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-email-validate

-- 
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 1485493] Review Request: ghc-base-orphans - Backwards-compatible orphan instances for base

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485493



--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-base-orphans

-- 
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 1485506] Review Request: ghc-generic-deriving - Generic programming library for generalised deriving

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485506



--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-generic-deriving

-- 
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 1485907] New: Review Request: rubygem-rack-attack - Block & throttle abusive requests

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485907

Bug ID: 1485907
   Summary: Review Request: rubygem-rack-attack - Block & throttle
abusive requests
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: val...@civ.zcu.cz
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/rubygem-rack-attack-5.0.1-1/rubygem-rack-attack.spec
SRPM URL:
http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/rubygem-rack-attack-5.0.1-1/rubygem-rack-attack-5.0.1-1.fc28.src.rpm
Description: A rack middleware for throttling and blocking abusive requests.
Fedora Account System Username: valtri

COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/valtri/ruby/build/594671/

-- 
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 1458441] Review Request: python-scrypt - Bindings for the scrypt key derivation function library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458441

Haïkel Guémar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-08-28 08:16:13



-- 
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 1482997] Review Request: prename - Perl script to rename multiple files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1482997



--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/prename

-- 
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 1485503] Review Request: ghc-uri-bytestring - Haskell URI parsing as ByteStrings

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485503



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-uri-bytestring

-- 
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 1485486] Review Request: ghc-disk-free-space - Retrieve information about disk space usage

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485486



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-disk-free-space

-- 
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 1485488] Review Request: ghc-mountpoints - List mount points

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485488



--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-mountpoints

-- 
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