date:20170901

[Bug 1486508] Review Request: ghc-aeson-compat - Compatibility layer for aeson

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486508

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1486508] Review Request: ghc-aeson-compat - Compatibility layer for aeson

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486508



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
ghc-aeson-compat-0.3.7.1-2.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-61e5032a1d

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

[Bug 1486580] Review Request: ghc-http-api-data - Converting to/ from HTTP API data like URL pieces, headers and query parameters

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486580

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1486580] Review Request: ghc-http-api-data - Converting to/ from HTTP API data like URL pieces, headers and query parameters

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486580



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
ghc-http-api-data-0.3.7.1-2.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-01986dbdf3

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

[Bug 1486584] Review Request: ghc-microlens-th - Automatic generation of record lenses for microlens

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486584

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1486584] Review Request: ghc-microlens-th - Automatic generation of record lenses for microlens

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486584



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
ghc-microlens-th-0.4.1.1-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-5090f19dc7

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

[Bug 1486593] Review Request: ghc-torrent - BitTorrent file parser and generater

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486593

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1486593] Review Request: ghc-torrent - BitTorrent file parser and generater

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486593



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
ghc-torrent-1.1.1-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-25bf8732d0

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

[Bug 1487419] Review Request: wsprx - Weak Signal Propagation Reporter

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487419

Jaroslav Škarvada  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Last Closed||2017-09-01 17:59:54



--- Comment #5 from Jaroslav Škarvada  ---
Upstream statement regarding WSPR-X and WSJT-X:
"I do not recommend packaging WSPR-X for any platform or distribution.  WSPR-X
is obsolete, and no longer supported. Its functions are limited, and anyway now
much better served by WSJT-X."

WSJT-X review request is in bug 1487776.

So closing this.

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

[Bug 1487658] Review Request: powerline-go - A beautiful and useful low-latency prompt for your shell, written in go

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487658

Ben Rosser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rosser@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rosser@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Ben Rosser  ---
You've reviewed a huge number of my packages lately, and I'm vaguely interested
in this (the upstream author is a fellow member of the quassel community).
Taken!

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

[Bug 1487776] New: Review Request: wsjtx - Weak Signal communication by K1JT

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487776

Bug ID: 1487776
   Summary: Review Request: wsjtx - Weak Signal communication by
K1JT
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jskar...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/wsjtx/wsjtx.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jskarvad.fedorapeople.org/wsjtx/wsjtx-1.8.0-0.1.rc1.fc25.src.rpm
Description: WSJT-X is a computer program designed to facilitate basic amateur
radio communication using very weak signals. It implements communication
protocols or "modes" called JT4, JT9, JT65, QRA64, ISCAT, MSK144, and WSPR, as
well as one called Echo for detecting and measuring your own radio signals
reflected from the Moon.
Fedora Account System Username: jskarvad

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

[Bug 1238379] Review Request: mingw-geos - MinGW Windows GEOS library

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238379



--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-geos

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

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ocaml-dose3

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

[Bug 1487430] Review Request: git-lfs - Git extension for versioning large files

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487430



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

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

[Bug 1484164] Review Request: libsocketpp - C++ Standard I/O TCP sockets

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484164



--- Comment #10 from Charlie Sale  ---
Hey Neal. Can I have an update on the review process of my package? Is there
anything I can fix for you?

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

[Bug 1238384] Review Request: mingw-qscintilla - MinGW Windows mingw-qscintilla library

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238384



--- Comment #5 from Sandro Mani  ---
Right, the whole cross-compiling python stuff is still a bit experimentation in
progress, I still occasionally encounter some rough edges, so I think I'll
still hold it off for the main repos for the moment, at least until I get
mingw-python-numpy to compile (which I'm working on now).

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

[Bug 1487505] Review Request: R-plyr - Tools for Splitting, Applying and Combining Data

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487505



--- Comment #3 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
Fixed.

Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/qulogic/IRkernel/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00597336-R-sp/R-sp-1.2.5-3.fc28.src.rpm
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/qulogic/IRkernel/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00597337-R-plyr/R-plyr-1.8.4-4.fc28.src.rpm
Description: A set of tools that solves a common set of problems: you need to
break a big problem down into manageable pieces, operate on each piece and then
put all the pieces back together.
Fedora Account System Username: qulogic

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

[Bug 1487542] Review Request: R-sp - Classes and Methods for Spatial Data

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487542



--- Comment #3 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
Fixed.

Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/qulogic/IRkernel/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00597336-R-sp/R-sp.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/qulogic/IRkernel/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00597336-R-sp/R-sp-1.2.5-3.fc28.src.rpm
Description: Classes and methods for spatial data; the classes document where
the spatial location information resides, for 2D or 3D data. Utility functions
are provided, e.g. for plotting data as maps, spatial selection, as well as
methods for retrieving coordinates, for subsetting, print, summary, etc.
Fedora Account System Username: qulogic

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

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #6 from Ben Rosser  ---
> It's reviewed already, but yes I believe you are correct about
> the subpackage.  The main package is an OCaml library so it of
> course does need to remain ocaml-*, as is the case.

Thanks for the confirmation!

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

[Bug 1431300] Review Request: python-dodgy - Searches for dodgy looking lines in Python code

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431300

Miro Hrončok  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|richard.kell...@gmail.com



--- Comment #6 from Miro Hrončok  ---
I've juts sponsored Richard.

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

[Bug 1484561] Review Request: python-ludolph - Monitoring Jabber Bot with Zabbix support, completely written in Python.

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484561



--- Comment #14 from Miro Hrončok  ---
I've sponsored you.

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

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

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #5 from Richard W.M. Jones  ---
(In reply to Ben Rosser from comment #3)
> Switched to using the configure macro.
> 
> Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/opam/ocaml-dose3.spec
> SRPM URL:
> https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/opam/ocaml-dose3-5.0.1-2.fc25.src.rpm
> 
> I also removed the unnecessary Requires on the main package from the
> dose3-tools subpackage. This makes me reasonably confident that the
> package's name shouldn't have an ocaml- prefix. Let me know if you disagree.

It's reviewed already, but yes I believe you are correct about
the subpackage.  The main package is an OCaml library so it of
course does need to remain ocaml-*, as is the case.

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

[Bug 1487416] zabbix-api-erigones: Zabbix API Python Library.

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487416



--- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok  ---
> Supported Python versions: >= 2.6 and >= 3.2

Not sure if this is useful in the package description.

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

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
purple-mattermost-1.1-4.20170805git4524538.el7 has been submitted as an update
to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-ef4b31d27a

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

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
purple-mattermost-1.1-4.20170805git4524538.fc25 has been submitted as an update
to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b6275a251b

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

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
purple-mattermost-1.1-4.20170805git4524538.fc26 has been submitted as an update
to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-830882c1f9

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

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
purple-mattermost-1.1-4.20170805git4524538.fc27 has been submitted as an update
to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-5fa9df44c6

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

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

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

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1487416] zabbix-api-erigones: Zabbix API Python Library.

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487416



--- Comment #2 from Richard Kellner  ---
Thank you for the review. 

Yes, 1.2.3 had a bug that it was not distributed with a LICENSE file. That I
have fixed in 1.2.4.

I have mentioned it at the end of the bug that 1.2.4 has not been released on
PyPI yet. So I assume you have tried to download it with spectool, and that is
why you got 404. Sorry, I should have released it anyway, to avoid confusion. I
was waiting if there would be something to fix in the spec so 1.2.4 matches the
spec on GitHub, sorry about that.

I have done the release of 1.2.4 and on PyPI should work for you without any
issues.

Build done from 1.2.4 has a LICENSE file distributed properly:

 sh-4.4# ll /usr/share/licenses/python3-zabbix-api-erigones/
total 0
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 26462 Aug 31 15:33 LICENSE

 sh-4.4# ll /usr/share/licenses/python2-zabbix-api-erigones/
total 0
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 26462 Aug 31 15:33 LICENSE

Koji builds:
f26: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21611400
f27: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21611440
f28: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21611479
rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21611489

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

[Bug 1487542] Review Request: R-sp - Classes and Methods for Spatial Data

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487542



--- Comment #2 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
No, you're right. These should have been put in a -devel subpackage:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:R#R_headers

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

[Bug 1487430] Review Request: git-lfs - Git extension for versioning large files

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487430



--- Comment #9 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
According to its man page, git only seems to support a single /etc/gitconfig
file and not a directory like /etc/mercurial/hgrc.d. So I don't see how this
could be done at build time. The file is not technically owned by git-lfs.

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

[Bug 1422683] Review Request: dahdi-tools - Tools for Digium Asterisk Hardware Device Interface drivers

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1422683



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
dahdi-tools-2.11.1-6.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-a7778ba64a

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

[Bug 1422683] Review Request: dahdi-tools - Tools for Digium Asterisk Hardware Device Interface drivers

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1422683

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



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

[Bug 1431420] Review Request: python-agate - Data analysis library that is optimized for humans instead of machines

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431420



--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-agate. You may create the branch
"f27" using git in about 10 minutes.

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

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

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



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

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

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

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



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

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

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

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



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

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

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-ncw-dropbox-sdk-go-unofficial

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

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

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

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #4 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 1475841] Review Request: golang-github-ncw-go-acd - Go library for accessing the Amazon Cloud Drive

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

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



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

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

[Bug 1487632] Review Request: perl-Acme-Alien-DontPanic - Test module for Alien::Base

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487632

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Sorry I paste in the wrong page.

For this package, everything is good, you should just ask upstream for a
LICENSE file.


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: "Unknown or generated", "Perl". 9 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/perl-
 Acme-Alien-DontPanic/review-perl-Acme-Alien-DontPanic/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
 /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/share/dist(perl-DBICx-AutoDoc, perl-
 Pegex, perl-DepGen-Perl-Tests, perl-Lingua-EN-Alphabet-Shaw, perl-
 Text-VimColor, perl-Shipwright, perl-PDF-Create, perl-MooX-Options,
 perl-Padre, perl-SQL-Translator, perl-File-ShareDir, perl-DateTime-
 Locale, perl-HTML-FormHandler, perl-Plack-Test, perl-Catalyst-Devel,
 perl-Inline-C, perl-Dancer2, perl-RDF-NS, perl-TestML, perl-Module-
 Manifest-Skip, perl-Inline-Module, perl-HTML-FormFu, perl-Module-
 Starter-Plugin-CGIApp, pangzero), /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Acme
 (perl-Acme-PlayCode), /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/auto(perl-Dist-
 Zilla, perl-WebService-Rajce, perl-Data-Uniqid, perl-DBICx-AutoDoc,
 perl-Net-Whois-IP, perl-Padre, perl-Lingua-EN-Alphabet-Shaw, perl-
 Text-VimColor, perl-Shipwright, perl-Config-Simple, perl-App-PFT,
 perl-PDF-Reuse, perl-Log-Agent, perl-Graph, perl-Data-Flow, perl-MooX-
 Options, pangzero, perl-CDDB_get, perl-SQL-Translator, perl-CGI-
 Application-Plugin-SuperForm, perl-HTML-FormFu, perl-File-ShareDir,
 perl-PDF-Create, perl-Tree-R, perl-DateTime-Locale, perl-WWW-
 Babelfish, perl-HTML-FormHandler, perl-SOCKS, perl-Affix-
 Infix2Postfix, perl-Catalyst-Devel, perl-LWP-Authen-Negotiate, perl-
 Net-Telnet-Cisco, perl-Crypt-CAST5_PP, perl-Dancer2, perl-Pegex, perl-
 Ace, perl-ORLite-Mirror, perl-RDF-NS, perl-TestML, perl-Module-
 Manifest-Skip, perl-Inline-Module, perl-Net-IPv4Addr, perl-Data-
 TreeDumper-Renderer-GTK, perl-Memoize-ExpireLRU, perl-Module-Starter-
 Plugin-CGIApp, perl-QWizard, perl-Net-Lite-FTP, perl-DepGen-Perl-
 Tests), /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/share(perl-Dist-Zilla, perl-
 DBICx-AutoDoc, perl-Pegex, pangzero, perl-Lingua-EN-Alphabet-Shaw,
 perl-Text-VimColor, perl-Shipwright, perl-App-PFT, perl-PDF-Create,
 perl-MooX-Options, perl-Padre, perl-SQL-Translator, perl-File-
 ShareDir, perl-DateTime-Locale, perl-HTML-FormHandler, perl-Plack-
 Test, perl-Catalyst-Devel, perl-Inline-C, perl-Dancer2, perl-ORLite-
 Mirror, perl-RDF-NS, perl-TestML, perl-Module-Manifest-Skip, perl-
 Inline-Module, perl-HTML-FormFu, perl-Module-Starter-Plugin-CGIApp,
 perl-DepGen-Perl-Tests)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]:

[Bug 1431420] Review Request: python-agate - Data analysis library that is optimized for humans instead of machines

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431420



--- Comment #7 from Julien Enselme  ---
> Can this be used in make in docs?

I don't think it is possible to build the doc in parallel nor that it will
speed up the thing.

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 1310901] Review Request: libmodsecurity- A library that loads/ interprets rules written in the ModSecurity SecRules

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310901



--- Comment #4 from Athmane Madjoudj  ---
Thank you for your input.

Release tag fixed, I'll check the build on non-x86 archs

Regarding make, it does not harm, plus it might be needed with minimal
Buildroot [1]

[1] https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/490


SPEC: https://athmane.fedorapeople.org/review/libmodsecurity.spec
SRPM:
https://athmane.fedorapeople.org/review/libmodsecurity-3.0.0-0.1.rc1.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 1487611] Review Request: dontpanic - Very simple library and executable used in testing Alien:: Base

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487611

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,

Please use a more meaningful name for your archive:

Source0:   
https://github.com/Perl5-Alien/dontpanic/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

 - make and findutils are not needed as BR.

 - dontpanic contains an rpath:

dontpanic.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/dontpanic
['/builddir/build/BUILD/dontpanic-1.00/src/.libs']

  You need to remove it, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Removing_Rpath



Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: make findutils
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2


= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[-]: 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)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
 generated". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/dontpanic/review-
 dontpanic/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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/.build-id(powerline-
 go), /usr/lib64/pkgconfig(pkgconf-pkg-config)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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 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]:

[Bug 1487632] Review Request: perl-Acme-Alien-DontPanic - Test module for Alien::Base

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487632

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,

 - make and findutils are not needed as BR.

 - dontpanic contains an rpath:

dontpanic.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/dontpanic
['/builddir/build/BUILD/dontpanic-1.00/src/.libs']

  You need to remove it, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Removing_Rpath


Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
  are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: make findutils
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2


= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[-]: 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)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
 generated". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/dontpanic/review-
 dontpanic/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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/.build-id(powerline-
 go), /usr/lib64/pkgconfig(pkgconf-pkg-config)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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 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

[Bug 1369560] Review Request: snapd-xdg-open - Bridge allowing (untrusted) snap applications to use xdg-open

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369560

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Last Closed||2017-09-01 13:53:47



--- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa  ---
This has been obsoleted by the re-implementation of this code in snapd[1].

[1]:
https://github.com/snapcore/snapd/commit/047538e13d0178e30d7cba551ac5cf41c57b78b5

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

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #3 from Ben Rosser  ---
Switched to using the configure macro.

Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/opam/ocaml-dose3.spec
SRPM URL:
https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/ocaml/opam/ocaml-dose3-5.0.1-2.fc25.src.rpm

I also removed the unnecessary Requires on the main package from the
dose3-tools subpackage. This makes me reasonably confident that the package's
name shouldn't have an ocaml- prefix. Let me know if you disagree.

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

[Bug 1487505] Review Request: R-plyr - Tools for Splitting, Applying and Combining Data

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487505

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
 QA Contact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



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


Same as the previous package, you should remove the rm -rf %{buildroot} in
%install



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: "Unknown or generated". 203 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/R-plyr/review-R-plyr/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[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.
[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]: 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[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

R:
[x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires.
[x]: The package has the standard %install section.

= 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

[Bug 1487430] Review Request: git-lfs - Git extension for versioning large files

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487430



--- Comment #8 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
to me scriptlets don't look sane... I would expect it to be executed while
package is built, but this is one thing...

Another thing could be done is to reference all files it creates via %ghost.

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

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199



--- Comment #12 from Neal Gompa  ---
> I wanted to wait until it's supported in latest EL to avoid %if but OK, I'll 
> pave the way ;)

I'm not sure how it could get supported in EL7, since RPM 4.11 and Yum don't
support it. We'd be waiting for EL8...

Just do "%if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} >= 8"

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

[Bug 1487430] Review Request: git-lfs - Git extension for versioning large files

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487430

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #7 from Neal Gompa  ---
Package was generated through gofed, simplifying the review considerably.

- Conforms to packaging guidelines (gofed generated spec)
- license correct and valid
- license file installed correctly
- Binaries for applications installed
- Scriptlets look sane

PACKAGE APPROVED

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

[Bug 1483300] Review Request: deepin-qt5integration - Qt platform theme integration plugins for DDE

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483300

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
It looks good, package accepted.


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (2 clause) GPL (v3) LGPL (v3)", "*No copyright* MPL
 (v2.0)", "BSD (3 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1)", "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD
 like)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)", "Public domain", "Freetype",
 "GPL (v3 or later)", "zlib/libpng", "*No copyright* MIT (old)",
 "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (2 clause)", "BSD (unspecified) CC0
 (v1.0)", "MIT (old)", "Apache (v2.0)", "MPL (v1.1) GPL (v2 or later)
 or LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* zlib/libpng", "*No
 copyright* Public domain", "MIT (enna) BSD (2 clause)", "*No
 copyright* BSD (unspecified)", "BSD (unspecified)", "LGPL (v3)", "BSD
 (3 clause) GPL (v2)", "Freetype GPL (v3) LGPL (v3)", "GPL (v3)", "GPL
 (v3) LGPL (v3)", "Unknown or generated", "Freetype Public domain",
 "*No copyright* CDDL", "LGPL (v2.1 or v3)", "NTP (legal disclaimer)".
 15649 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/deepin-qt5integration/review-deepin-
 qt5integration/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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: 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]:

[Bug 1487419] Review Request: wsprx - Weak Signal Propagation Reporter

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487419



--- Comment #4 from Jaroslav Škarvada  ---
Btw at the moment I am trying to package WSJT-X, which is a bit tricky.
According to upstream WSJT-X superseded WSPR-X, so if I successfully package
it, I will probably drop this request - if not, I will go with WSPR-X instead
(it can still do the job).

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

[Bug 1487542] Review Request: R-sp - Classes and Methods for Spatial Data

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487542

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 Elliott,

 - There's an extra rm -rf in %install, I guess you forgot to remove it from
the template:

%install
rm -rf %{buildroot}

 - No license file: you should query upstream for inclusion of one.

 - I'm not knowledgeable enough regarding all the subtlety of R packaging, but
could you explain why there *.h and *.c files in
%{rlibdir}/%{packname}/include? Shouldn't they be in a -devel subpackage?
Rpmlint is not happy about these, but maybe they are needed in the main
package?


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.
[-]: 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: "Unknown or generated". 207 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/R-sp/review-R-sp/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
 Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[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.
[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]: 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]: 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.

[Bug 1487419] Review Request: wsprx - Weak Signal Propagation Reporter

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487419



--- Comment #3 from Jaroslav Škarvada  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2)
>  - Why do you make a -doc subpackage for a single file? Just include it in
> the %doc directive:
> 
> %files
> %doc WSPR-X_Users_Guide.pdf
> 
That's intended, not everybody needs the guide.

>  - Why do you want to convert the docx to a PDF?
Because docx is um, non optimal format. Not everybody has reader for it. And
btw upstream also converts to PDF and ships PDF in binary package.

> And why do you pull
> Libreoffice Writer (which is a huge dependency) to just do that?
>
Not an issue, build time dep.

> If you feel necessary to join the help in PDF, I think it would be better to
> add it as Source1 with a comment on how you converted it. (for that I
It's better to automate and convert it in build time instead of ad-hoc manual
hacks.

> suggest you to also look at pandoc, a command line tool to convert to and
> from multiple format).
Libreoffice do a much better job.

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

[Bug 1483300] Review Request: deepin-qt5integration - Qt platform theme integration plugins for DDE

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483300



--- Comment #9 from sensor@gmail.com ---
https://github.com/FZUG/repo/commit/fd12d9afda0ef2ead48064c5271b9f3ca2d4f0c9

Fixed.

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

[Bug 1487419] Review Request: wsprx - Weak Signal Propagation Reporter

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487419

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



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


Additionally:

 - You can replace make %{?_smp_mflags} install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} with
%make_install
 - make %{?_smp_mflags} → %make_build

 - Why do you make a -doc subpackage for a single file? Just include it in the
%doc directive:

%files
%doc WSPR-X_Users_Guide.pdf

 - Why do you want to convert the docx to a PDF? And why do you pull
Libreoffice Writer (which is a huge dependency) to just do that?

If you feel necessary to join the help in PDF, I think it would be better to
add it as Source1 with a comment on how you converted it. (for that I suggest
you to also look at pandoc, a command line tool to convert to and from multiple
format).

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

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199



--- Comment #11 from Jakub Ruzicka  ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #10)
> > The Python 3 support is rather fresh and not well tested. Furthermore, 
> > python3-bunch isn't available. I'll switch python3-rdopkg to provide rdopkg 
> > as soon as I'm confident in py3 support (in rdopkg and in EL).
> 
> If there's a missing dependency, I'd rather block rdopkg from being included
> period. In addition, your current scheme does not allow for a seamless
> transition from Python 2 to Python 3 for rdopkg because in order to switch
> it, you'd have to obsolete the python2 version, which may not necessarily
> work. I would suggest splitting out /usr/bin/rdopkg into an rdopkg
> subpackage that Requires the python2 or python3 version depending on what
> you prefer.

Good suggestion, will do.

> For the "optional but recommended" thing, please use Recommends for Fedora.
> If it's not a hard dependency, don't make it one.

I wanted to wait until it's supported in latest EL to avoid %if but OK, I'll
pave the way ;)

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

[Bug 1487416] zabbix-api-erigones: Zabbix API Python Library.

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487416

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

The latest version displayed here
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/zabbix-api-erigones is 1.2.3. I can't find version
1.2.4 even on Github, your Source0 is 404ing because of that.

With the version 1.2.3, the build fails with:

error: File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/python-zabbix-api-erigones-1.2.3-1.fc28.x86_64/usr/share/licenses/python2-zabbix-api-erigones/LICENSE

I suggest you add the LICENSE as a Source1:

Source1:   
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/erigones/zabbix-api/master/LICENSE



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: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/zabbix-api-erigones/review-python-zabbix-
 api-erigones/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source

[Bug 1486238] Review Request: python-subliminal - Python library to search and download subtitles

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486238



--- Comment #5 from Sandro Mani  ---
As soon as you post the updated SRPM I can finish the series ;)

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

[Bug 1310901] Review Request: libmodsecurity- A library that loads/ interprets rules written in the ModSecurity SecRules

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310901

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Hello,

 - Your Release: is missing the dist tag:

Release: 0.%{extra_rel}%{?dist}

 - It is not necessary to add make to the BR.

 - The versioning is wrong, the release tag should start at 0.1 (Cf
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Versioning_Examples ):

Release: 0.1.%{extra_rel}%{?dist}

  And:

* Wed Aug 30 2017 Athmane Madjoudj  - 3.0.0-0.1.rc1


 - Koji is not very happy, your package fails on all arches besides i386 and
x86_64:

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21607088

This package won't be accepted until this is solved. Report bugs upstream/fix
the bugs/add ExclusiveArch with valid reasons as to why you need specific
arches only.

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

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

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

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com



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

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

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

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

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com



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

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

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

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

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com



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

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

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

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

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com



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

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

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

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

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com



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

[Bug 1486226] Review Request: python-guessit - Python library that extracts as much information as possible from a video filename

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486226

Sandro Mani  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #9 from Sandro Mani  ---
Actually I think the failing test is some missing dependency? Locally, the
tests pass fine (though I needed to add BR: python2-statistics). In COPR, looks
like all failures are related to ('mimetype', 'video/x-matroska'). I've tried
adding libmatroska as BR, but it did not help when building in COPR. Perhaps
you can figure out what is missing or ask upstream? 

In any event, not worth blocking the review, approved.

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

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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[y]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: 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

[Bug 1238374] Review Request: mingw-cfitsio - MinGW Windows CFITSIO library

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238374



--- Comment #9 from Sandro Mani  ---
Statement from legal:

"
> cfitsio is licensed MIT. Is my understanding correct that this special
> exception means that these files are also MIT licensed, being
> distributed as part of cfitsio, and hence that the license field of the
> package only needs to specify MIT?

Yes. You may use the bison parser skeleton code under any license terms
you wish, assuming cfitsio is not a parser generator (which it does not
appear to be)."

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

[Bug 1487658] New: Review Request: powerline-go - A beautiful and useful low-latency prompt for your shell, written in go

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487658

Bug ID: 1487658
   Summary: Review Request: powerline-go - A beautiful and useful
low-latency prompt for your shell, written in go
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: zebo...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



SPEC URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/powerline-go/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00597212-powerline-go/powerline-go.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/powerline-go/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00597212-powerline-go/powerline-go-1.5.0-1.fc28.src.rpm

Description: A Powerline like prompt for Bash, ZSH and Fish.

 - Shows some important details about the git/hg branch
 - Changes color if the last command exited with a failure code
 - If you're too deep into a directory tree, shortens the displayed path with
an ellipsis
 - Shows the current Python virtualenv environment
 - It's easy to customize and extend.

Fedora Account System username: eclipseo


Note: I had to deactivate build on i386 arch because of a bug. I filed a report
upstream.

Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21606601

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

[Bug 1486904] Review Request: python-pytest-benchmark - A py.test fixture for benchmarking code. It will group the tests into rounds that are calibrated to the chosen timer

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486904

Sandro Mani  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Sandro Mani  ---
All good, approved.

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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 8 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: 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 try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199



--- Comment #10 from Neal Gompa  ---
> The Python 3 support is rather fresh and not well tested. Furthermore, 
> python3-bunch isn't available. I'll switch python3-rdopkg to provide rdopkg 
> as soon as I'm confident in py3 support (in rdopkg and in EL).

If there's a missing dependency, I'd rather block rdopkg from being included
period. In addition, your current scheme does not allow for a seamless
transition from Python 2 to Python 3 for rdopkg because in order to switch it,
you'd have to obsolete the python2 version, which may not necessarily work. I
would suggest splitting out /usr/bin/rdopkg into an rdopkg subpackage that
Requires the python2 or python3 version depending on what you prefer.

For the "optional but recommended" thing, please use Recommends for Fedora. If
it's not a hard dependency, don't make it one.

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

[Bug 1484222] Review Request: no-more-secrets - A recreation of the " decrypting text" effect from the 1992 movie Sneakers

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484222



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
no-more-secrets-0.3.2-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b50c986306

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

[Bug 1483381] Review Request: php-flow-jsonpath - JSONPath implementation for parsing, searching and flattening arrays

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483381



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-flow-jsonpath-0.3.4-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-2b91b76e82

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

[Bug 1483372] Review Request: php-behat-gherkin - Gherkin DSL parser for PHP

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483372



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-behat-gherkin-4.4.5-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b1210ff7f2

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

[Bug 1484350] Review Request: python-treq - A requests-like API built on top of twisted.web's Agent

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484350



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-treq-17.8.0-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-45c989fc7b

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

[Bug 1483376] Review Request: php-dflydev-dot-access-data - Given a deep data structure, access data by dot notation

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483376



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-dflydev-dot-access-data-1.1.0-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-69397e0447

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

[Bug 1483375] Review Request: php-consolidation-log - Improved Psr-3 / Psr\Log logger based on Symfony Console components

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483375



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-consolidation-log-1.0.3-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-c661b92fa9

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

[Bug 1470448] Review Request: php-simplesamlphp-saml2_3 - SAML2 PHP library from SimpleSAMLphp ( version 3)

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470448



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
php-simplesamlphp-saml2_3-3.0.2-3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-852dc3f8f2

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

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

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
Rex-1.5.0-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-4e208a87a2

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

[Bug 1344276] Review Request: gdeploy - Tool to deploy GlusterFS clusters and other utilities

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1344276



--- Comment #46 from Fedora Update System  ---
gdeploy-2.0.2-14.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-948d6d6dfc

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

[Bug 1485869] Review Request: compat-ImageMagick693 - Compat package with ImageMagick 6.9.3 libraries

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485869



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
compat-ImageMagick693-6.9.3.10-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-f79e0c7cc4

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

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
prename-1.9-4.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-0671f3e812

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

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-incremental-17.5.0-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-c96acd632d

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

[Bug 1477362] Review Request: ocaml-opam-file-format - Parser and printer for the opam file syntax

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477362



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
ocaml-opam-file-format-2.0.0-0.2.beta3.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25
testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this
bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-5c995bff3a

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

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-bazil-fuse

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

[Bug 1487611] Review Request: dontpanic - Very simple library and executable used in testing Alien:: Base

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487611

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1487632




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487632
[Bug 1487632] Review Request: perl-Acme-Alien-DontPanic - Test module for
Alien::Base
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1246199] Review Request: rdopkg - RPM packaging automation tool

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1246199



--- Comment #9 from Jakub Ruzicka  ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #8)
> Why does the Python 2 version "Provides: rdopkg = %{version}-%{release}"?

Because previously, the package was called just `rdopkg`, this is backward
compat.

> Why can't the Python 3 version do that in Fedora and EL7?

The Python 3 support is rather fresh and not well tested. Furthermore,
python3-bunch isn't available. I'll switch python3-rdopkg to provide rdopkg as
soon as I'm confident in py3 support (in rdopkg and in EL).

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

[Bug 1487632] Review Request: perl-Acme-Alien-DontPanic - Test module for Alien::Base

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487632

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1487611




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487611
[Bug 1487611] Review Request: dontpanic - Very simple library and
executable used in testing Alien::Base
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1487632] New: Review Request: perl-Acme-Alien-DontPanic - Test module for Alien::Base

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487632

Bug ID: 1487632
   Summary: Review Request: perl-Acme-Alien-DontPanic - Test
module for Alien::Base
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Acme-Alien-DontPanic/perl-Acme-Alien-DontPanic.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-Acme-Alien-DontPanic/perl-Acme-Alien-DontPanic-0.044-1.fc28.src.rpm
Description:
This Perl module is a toy module to test the efficacy of the Alien::Base
system.

Fedora Account System Username: ppisar

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

[Bug 1238384] Review Request: mingw-qscintilla - MinGW Windows mingw-qscintilla library

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238384

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
I will be using the SPEC file and patches from your Github.

SPEC URL:
https://github.com/manisandro/fedora-mingw/raw/master/mingw-qscintilla/mingw-qscintilla.spec

Some missing dependencies:

DEBUG util.py:450:  No matching package to install: 'mingw32-PyQt4': I can't
build it because it is missing phonon headers file:

cfgtest_phonon.cpp:1:10: fatal error: phonon/videowidget.h: No such file or
directory
 #include 

I guess you'll have to make a mingw-phonon package.

It also depends on mingw-sip (potential problem: does not produce debug infos)

DEBUG util.py:450:  No matching package to install: 'mingw32-python2'
DEBUG util.py:450:  No matching package to install: 'mingw32-python2-qt5'

I don't think you have proposed any of them yet? I'd be happy to review them
once you do.

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

[Bug 1487595] Review Request: python34-gobject - Python 3 bindings for GObject Introspection

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487595



--- Comment #1 from Björn "besser82" Esser  ---
Fixed Urls:

  Spec URL: 
https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/python34-gobject.spec
  SRPM URL: 
https://pagure.io/besser82/package-review/raw/master/f/python34-gobject-3.22.0-1.el7.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 1238379] Review Request: mingw-geos - MinGW Windows GEOS library

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238379

Juan Orti  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #7 from Juan Orti  ---
APPROVED.

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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
[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.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

= EXTRA items =

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
---
Checking: mingw32-geos-3.6.2-1.fc26.noarch.rpm

[Bug 1487578] Review Request: open62541 - OPC UA implementation

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487578



--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov  ---
REVIEW:

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

+ rpmlint is silent

lemenkov ~/Downloads: rpmlint open62541-0.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
open62541-devel-0.2-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
open62541.x86_64: W: no-documentation

^^^ Please add some docs to the main package (add the following line:

%doc doc/ examples/ AUTHORS FEATURES.md README.md

I guess better put doc/ and examples/ and FEATURES.md to devel-subpackage.

open62541.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id
open62541.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id

^^^ Not sure about this. I guess it's fine.

open62541.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/libopen62541.so

^^^ see my note above

open62541-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation

^^ see above.

2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
lemenkov ~/Downloads:

+ 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 has few issues preventig it from meeting the Packaging
Guidelines.

+ 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
(MPLv2).

- The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, MUST be
included as %license. Please add the following line to the main %files section:

%license LICENSE LICENSE-CC0

The former (LICENSE-CC0) must be placed in the %files section where examples/
are.

+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum rpm-0.2.tar.gz*
d75a0c8703625d768edabe157ed28483e9c54a94c15dd81dba37ecb689601398 
rpm-0.2.tar.gz
d75a0c8703625d768edabe157ed28483e9c54a94c15dd81dba37ecb689601398 
rpm-0.2.tar.gz.1
Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: 

Tarball's name is misleading. Could you please use %{name}-%{release}.tar.gz
instead? (NOT A BLOCKER).

+ 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.
+ The package stores shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's
default paths, and it calls ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ 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.
+ Header files are stored in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.

- The library file(s) that end in .so (without suffix) must be stored in a
-devel package.

- The -devel package must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

+ 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.


Almost done. Please address my notes and I'll approve it.

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

[Bug 1487578] Review Request: open62541 - OPC UA implementation

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487578



--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov  ---
Couple of notes:

* The following line must be moved to devel files section:

%{_libdir}/libopen62541.so

* Please add _isa macro to Requires section in -devel subppackage. E.g. change
from this:

Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

to this:

Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

So it will always pick up the right main package.

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

[Bug 1487611] New: Review Request: dontpanic - Very simple library and executable used in testing Alien:: Base

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487611

Bug ID: 1487611
   Summary: Review Request: dontpanic - Very simple library and
executable used in testing Alien::Base
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/dontpanic/dontpanic.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/dontpanic/dontpanic-1.00-1.fc28.src.rpm
Description:
This software provides a very simple library and executable used in testing
Alien::Base.

Fedora Account System Username: ppisar

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

[Bug 1487578] Review Request: open62541 - OPC UA implementation

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487578

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1487578] Review Request: open62541 - OPC UA implementation

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487578

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||lemen...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Peter Lemenkov  ---
Hello Jens, I'll review it and I'll sponsor you.

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

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

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

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



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
jbuilder-1.0-0.3.beta12.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-2df5fe23b2

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

[Bug 1484764] Review Request: R-uuid - Tools for generating and handling of UUIDs

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484764



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
R-uuid-0.1.2-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-47edffafed

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

[Bug 1484738] Review Request: R-png - Read and write PNG images

2017-09-01 Thread bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484738



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
R-png-0.1.7-3.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-7c0ccf4c7d

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

1 2 3 >

1 - 100 of 222 matches

Mail list logo