[Bug 1540073] Review Request: nss_nis - Name Service Switch (NSS) module using NIS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540073

Petr Kubat  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mmuz...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(mmuz...@redhat.co
   ||m)



--- Comment #1 from Petr Kubat  ---
Please rename the package to the upstream name - libnss_nis.

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

[Bug 1540073] Review Request: nss_nis - Name Service Switch (NSS) module using NIS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540073

Petr Kubat  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 1540833] Review Request: racket - programming language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540833

David Benoit  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Version|27  |rawhide



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

[Bug 1540833] Review Request: racket - programming language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540833

David Benoit  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Version|rawhide |27
 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)




Referenced Bugs:

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

[Bug 1540833] New: Review Request: racket - programming language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540833

Bug ID: 1540833
   Summary: Review Request: racket - programming language
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: dben...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dbenoit/racket/fedora-27-x86_64/00707709-racket/racket.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dbenoit/racket/fedora-27-x86_64/00707709-racket/racket-6.12-1.fc27.src.rpm

Project Website: https://racket-lang.org/

Description: Racket is a general-purpose programming language as well as the
world’s first ecosystem for developing and deploying new languages. 

Fedora Account System Username: dbenoit

Most recent koji build URL:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24604603

Notes:
This is my first package review submission.  

The package is unable to build on the following architectures:
- armv7hl 
- s390x

A section of code was discovered in one of the package's libraries which
conflicts with Fedora's licensing policy.  I have worked with upstream to
address this, and it is safely removed with the following series of patches.

# Update SRFI libraries to include upstream PR 5. 
# See: https://github.com/racket/srfi/pull/5
Patch0: racket-6.12-update-srfi.patch

# Remove SRFI library and docs with restrictive licensing. 
# See: https://github.com/racket/srfi/issues/4
Patch1: racket-6.12-remove-nonfree.patch

There is an existing review request open for Racket at the following link which
was opened two years ago and has long since stagnated.  I posted a while ago to
see if I could help move it along, but I have not heard back from the anyone
who participated in the original conversation.  I think it is appropriate to
close that review request and start fresh.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301219

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

[Bug 1507103] Review Request: kronosnet - Multipoint-to-Multipoint network abstraction layer for High Availability applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103



--- Comment #31 from digimer  ---
I've rolled a new RPM to address the rawhide / gcc8 issue. I also updated the
project description.

New .spec and srpm:
https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet.spec.1.0-4
https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet-1.0-4.fc26.src.rpm

f26:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24608847

f27:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24608937

rawhide (now builds correctly):
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24608749

epel7:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24608951

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

[Bug 1538658] Review Request: python-anyconfig - common API to load and dump configuration files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538658

Troy Curtis  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||troycurti...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Troy Curtis  ---
Since executables are being shipped in both python 2 and 3 subpackages, each
package needs to have executables with -X and -X.Y version suffixes [0], with
python2 providing an unversioned symlink executable.

The executables exists in both subpackages, but only the python2 package has
the man page.

The LICENSE.MIT file needs to be included with %license.

0: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Naming

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

[Bug 1539362] Review Request: rust-tokio-proto - Network application framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539362

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Some *.rs file are marked as executable. This angers your new
brp-mangle-shebangs script. Please remove the executable bits

find . -executable -type f -name "*.rs" -exec chmod 0644 "{}" \;

   and provide a PR for upstream.

 - Latest version packaged
 - License ok
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors

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 1539359] Review Request: rust-take - Cell allowing the inner value to be consumed without a mutable reference

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539359

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Latest version packaged
 - License ok
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors

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 1539357] Review Request: rust-tokio-service - Core `Service` trait for Tokio

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539357

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Latest version packaged
 - License ok
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors

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 1372785] Review Request: EPEL7 ONLY python3-pyOpenSSL- a python3x build of the pyOpenSSL included in the base distro

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372785

Orion Poplawski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request:  EPEL7 ONLY |Review Request:  EPEL7 ONLY
   |python-pyOpenSSL- a |python3-pyOpenSSL- a
   |python3x build of the   |python3x build of the
   |pyOpenSSL included in the   |pyOpenSSL included in the
   |base distro |base distro



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

[Bug 1372785] Review Request: EPEL7 ONLY python-pyOpenSSL- a python3x build of the pyOpenSSL included in the base distro

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372785



--- Comment #12 from Orion Poplawski  ---
So, python3-cryptography 1.7.2 is now in EPEL7.  So we can get 17.0.0 in.  If
we update it to 1.9 we could get in 17.3.0, see bug #1540756.

https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python3-pyOpenSSL.spec
https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python3-pyOpenSSL-17.0.0-1.el7.src.rpm
https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python3-pyOpenSSL-17.3.0-1.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 1539323] Review Request: ghc-unliftio-core - The MonadUnliftIO typeclass for unlifting monads to IO

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539323

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Package approved.

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-unliftio-core/review-ghc-unliftio-
 core/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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.
[-]: 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 133120 bytes in 17 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 

[Bug 1519749] Review request: qdigidoc - Estonian digital signature application

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519749
Bug 1519749 depends on bug 1519747, which changed state.

Bug 1519747 Summary: Review request: libdigidocpp - Library offers creating, 
signing and verification of digitally signed documents, according to XAdES and 
XML-DSIG standards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519747

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA



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

[Bug 1519747] Review request: libdigidocpp - Library offers creating, signing and verification of digitally signed documents, according to XAdES and XML-DSIG standards

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519747

Germano Massullo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2018-01-31 18:20:02



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

[Bug 1539314] Review Request: ghc-basement - Foundation scrap box of array & string

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539314

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Latest version seems to be 0.0.6, please bump the version.

Package otherwise approved.


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: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
 (unspecified)". 47 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-basement/review-ghc-
 basement/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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.
[-]: 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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.

[Bug 1519323] Review request: qesteidutil - Estonian ID card utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519323



--- Comment #8 from Germano Massullo  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #7)
> Well that's your patch, what does it do/why is it needed?

The patch was already in the retired package, it is not mine

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

[Bug 1519323] Review request: qesteidutil - Estonian ID card utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519323



--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Well that's your patch, what does it do/why is it needed?

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

[Bug 1519323] Review request: qesteidutil - Estonian ID card utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519323



--- Comment #6 from Germano Massullo  ---
https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/qesteidutil/qesteidutil.spec
https://germano.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/qesteidutil/qesteidutil-3.12.10-1.fc27.src.rpm

I need some suggestions about what to write as comment for the patch

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

[Bug 1540749] New: Review Request: python3-pyusb - Python 3 bindings for libusb

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540749

Bug ID: 1540749
   Summary: Review Request: python3-pyusb - Python 3 bindings for
libusb
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: or...@nwra.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python3-pyusb.spec
SRPM URL:
https://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python3-pyusb-1.0.2-1.el7.src.rpm
Description:
PyUSB provides easy USB access to python. The module contains classes and
methods to support most USB operations.

Fedora Account System Username: orion

This is an EPEL only 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 1539291] Review Request: ghc-echo - Cross-platform, cross-console echoing of terminal input

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539291

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Package approved.


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: "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (unspecified)", "Unknown or generated".
 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-echo/review-ghc-echo/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[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.
[-]: 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 122880 bytes in 17 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported 

[Bug 1529202] Review Request: ocaml-migrate-parsetree - Convert OCaml parsetrees between different major versions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529202

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
ocaml-migrate-parsetree-1.0.7-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2018-d01a8c2710

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

[Bug 1528530] Review Request: ocaml-rope - Ropes ("heavyweight strings") for OCaml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1528530

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
ocaml-rope-0.6.1-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 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-2018-30dedc3dd4

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

[Bug 1519749] Review request: qdigidoc - Estonian digital signature application

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519749

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 1519749] Review request: qdigidoc - Estonian digital signature application

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519749



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
qdigidoc-3.13.4-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-569f4b05f7

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

[Bug 1540599] Review Request: rust-remove_dir_all - Safe, reliable implementation of remove_dir_all

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540599

Josh Stone  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Josh Stone  ---
Package was generated through rust2rpm, simplifying the review considerably.

- Conforms to packaging guidelines (rust2rpm generated spec)
- license correct and valid
- only sources installed

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 1540599] Review Request: rust-remove_dir_all - Safe, reliable implementation of remove_dir_all

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540599

Josh Stone  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jist...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jist...@redhat.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



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

[Bug 1539271] Review Request: rust-streaming-stats - Experimental crate for computing basic statistics on streams

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539271

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Latest version packaged
 - License ok
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors

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

[Bug 1519324] Review Request: onedrive - OneDrive Free Client written in D

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519324

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2018-01-31 16:57:07



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
onedrive-1.0.1-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

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

[Bug 1540726] New: Review request: bettercap - A complete, modular, portable and easily extensible MITM framework

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540726

Bug ID: 1540726
   Summary: Review request: bettercap - A complete, modular,
portable and easily extensible MITM framework
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: germano.massu...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Description:
bettercap is a complete, modular, portable and easily extensible MITM tool and
framework with every kind of diagnostic and offensive feature you could need in
order to perform a man in the middle attack.

spec file:
https://pagure.io/bettercap-spec_file/blob/master/f/bettercap.spec

Note:
- bettercap-ng was the original project name, that has been changed today into
bettercap 2.0, more infos at
https://github.com/evilsocket/bettercap-ng/issues/35
- I could not provide a SRPM file because it is my first Go package and I have
not managed to create a fully working SRPM file

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

[Bug 1539134] Review Request: bouncycastle1.58 - Bouncy Castle Cryptography APIs for Java

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
There's a few fedora-review errors but I don't know how pertinent they are
regarding EPEL6 packaging, you're using old macros instead of
%mvn_artifact/%mvn_install because they don't exist in EPEL6?


Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- POM files have correct Maven mapping
  Note: Old style Maven package found, no add_maven_depmap calls found but
  POM files present
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Maven_pom.xml_files
- Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is being used
- Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
  Note: jpackage-utils requires are automatically generated by the
  buildsystem
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "CC0", "*No copyright* Apache (v1.1)",
 "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 5580 files
 have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/bouncycastle1.58/review-
 bouncycastle1.58/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven2/poms, /usr/share/maven2,
 /etc/maven/fragments
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/maven,
 /usr/share/maven2/poms, /etc/maven/fragments, /usr/share/maven2
[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 296960 bytes in 12 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
 subpackage
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it 

[Bug 1538341] Review Request: python-testinfra - unit testing for server state

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538341



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - It's not needed to duplicate the source code to do both python2 and python3
builds.

 - Not needed in %install: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

 - package name should be: python-%{pkgname} with two subpackages %package
-n python2-testinfra and %package -n python3-testinfra

 - No need for these custom macros setup_cmd_p2/setup_cmd_p3, just use the
normal macros and pass your variables to them.

 - Use a more meaningful name for your archive with:

Source0:   
https://github.com/philpep/%{pkgname}/archive/%{version}/%{pkgname}-%{version}.tar.gz

 - You include doc in %doc but you didn't build the doc with sphinx first, what
you're really doing is adding source files for the doc.

# generate html docs 
sphinx-build doc/source html
# remove the sphinx-build leftovers
rm -rf html/.{doctrees,buildinfo}

 - you did not include %{?python_provide:%python_provide


Here's my take on it:


%{!?__python2: %global __python2 %__python}
%{!?python2_sitelib: %global python2_sitelib %(%{__python2} -c "from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print(get_python_lib())")}

%if 0%{?fedora}
%bcond_without python3
%else
%bcond_with python3
%endif

%global pkgname testinfra

Name:   python-%{pkgname}
Version:1.10.1
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Unit testing for config-managed server state

License:ASL 2.0
URL:https://github.com/philpep/%{pkgname}
Source0:%{url}/archive/%{version}/%{pkgname}-%{version}.tar.gz

BuildArch:  noarch

BuildRequires:  python2-devel
BuildRequires:  python2-pbr

# testing requirements
BuildRequires:  python2-mock
BuildRequires:  python2-six
BuildRequires:  python2-pytest
BuildRequires:  python2-pytest-xdist
BuildRequires:  python2-pytest-cov
BuildRequires:  python2-winrm
BuildRequires:  python2-paramiko
BuildRequires:  salt

%if %{with python3}
BuildRequires:  python3-devel
BuildRequires:  python3-pbr

# testing requirements
BuildRequires:  python3-mock
BuildRequires:  python3-six
BuildRequires:  python3-pytest
BuildRequires:  python3-pytest-xdist
BuildRequires:  python3-pytest-cov
BuildRequires:  python3-winrm
BuildRequires:  python3-paramiko
%endif # with python3

%if %{with python3}
BuildRequires:  python3-sphinx
%else
BuildRequires:  python2-sphinx
%endif # with python3

%description
With Testinfra you can write unit tests in Python to test actual state of your
servers configured by management tools like Salt, Ansible, Puppet, Chef and so
on.

Testinfra aims to be a Serverspec equivalent in python and is written as a
plugin to the powerful Pytest test engine


%package -n python2-%{pkgname}
Summary:Unit testing for config-managed server state
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python2-%{pkgname}}

%description -n python2-%{pkgname}
With Testinfra you can write unit tests in Python to test actual state of your
servers configured by management tools like Salt, Ansible, Puppet, Chef and so
on.

Testinfra aims to be a Serverspec equivalent in python and is written as a
plugin to the powerful Pytest test engine


%if %{with python3}
%package -n python3-%{pkgname}
Summary:Unit testing for config-managed server state
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{pkgname}}

%description -n python3-%{pkgname}
With Testinfra you can write unit tests in Python to test actual state of your
servers configured by management tools like Salt, Ansible, Puppet, Chef and so
on.

Testinfra aims to be a Serverspec equivalent in python and is written as a
plugin to the powerful Pytest test engine

%endif # with python3


%prep
%autosetup -n %{pkgname}-%{version}

%build
SKIP_PIP_INSTALL=1 PBR_VERSION=%{version} %py2_build
%if %{with python3}
SKIP_PIP_INSTALL=1 PBR_VERSION=%{version} %py3_build
%endif # with python3

# generate html docs 
sphinx-build doc/source html
# remove the sphinx-build leftovers
rm -rf html/.{doctrees,buildinfo}


%install
SKIP_PIP_INSTALL=1 PBR_VERSION=%{version} %py2_install
%if %{with python3}
SKIP_PIP_INSTALL=1 PBR_VERSION=%{version} %py3_install
%endif # with python3


%check
SKIP_PIP_INSTALL=1 PBR_VERSION=%{version} %{__python2} setup.py test

%files -n python2-%{pkgname}
%license LICENSE
%doc html *.rst
%if %{without python3}
%{_bindir}/%{pkgname}
%endif # without python3
%{python2_sitelib}/%{pkgname}
%{python2_sitelib}/%{pkgname}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info

%if %{with python3}
%files -n python3-%{pkgname}
%license LICENSE
%doc html *.rst
%{_bindir}/%{pkgname}
%{python3_sitelib}/%{pkgname}
%{python3_sitelib}/%{pkgname}-%{version}-py?.?.egg-info
%endif # with python3


%changelog
* Wed Jan 24 2018 Brett Lentz  - 1.10.1-1
- initial 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 -- 

[Bug 1540335] Review Request: primesieve - Fast C/ C++ prime number generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540335



--- Comment #3 from Kim Walisch  ---
Reading through the documentation:

> Use a Release: tag starting with 1 (never 0). Append the Dist tag. Increment 
> the release (by 1) for each update you make. Reset to 1 whenever you change 
> Version:.

OK, I missed this. But I have now increased the release to 2%{?dist}.

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

[Bug 1540335] Review Request: primesieve - Fast C/ C++ prime number generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540335



--- Comment #2 from Kim Walisch  ---
Thanks for your feedback. I have fixed the issues you pointed out and pushed a
new version of the spec and SRPM to GitHub:

Spec URL:
https://github.com/kimwalisch/primesieve-rpm/blob/master/primesieve.spec
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/kimwalisch/primesieve-rpm/raw/master/primesieve-6.4-1.fc27.src.rpm

Hers's the link to the successful koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24601545

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

[Bug 1538824] Review Request: python-grabbit - Get grabby with file trees

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538824

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Summary:%{sum}

%{sum} hasn't been defined anywhere, please correct this.

 - Please consider asking upstream for a LICENCE file.

 - You should notify upstream about their failing tests.

Package 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.
[-]: 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 (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
 generated". 98 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-grabbit/review-
 python-grabbit/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.
[!]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
 Note: Macros in: python2-grabbit (summary), python3-grabbit (summary)
[-]: 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 61440 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 python2-grabbit , 

[Bug 1507103] Review Request: kronosnet - Multipoint-to-Multipoint network abstraction layer for High Availability applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103



--- Comment #30 from Jan Pokorný  ---
1. Ah, I see, there's a little misunderstanding here, we indeed polemized
   about "--%{?with_sctp:en}%{!?with_sctp:dis}able-libknet-sctp}", but
   the disagreement did not cover

>   %{?with_sctp:--enable-libknet-sctp} \
>   %{!?with_sctp:--disable-libknet-sctp} \

   variant from [comment 11] (with the surrounding changes), which is hardly
   disputable and still better than the overcombined original

2. I am talking about README.license included in the tarball that's
   included in the SRPM (quick tip: you can use Midnight Commander to
   enter RPM files, and subsequently CONTENTS.cpio and any nested
   tarball that's present there), i.e., file of kronosnet proper:

   https://github.com/kronosnet/kronosnet/blob/master/README.licence

   my take is that it provides a definitive answer what (and only what)
   should License tag for libraries vs. application/executable packages
   contain -- see also [comment 21]; you may want to check this very
   conclusion with upstream, though

3. certainly a matter of advanced compiled code packaging fu (but no
   need to stress about this as we are here to help), though the
   SHOULD recommendation has its merit -- beside being nicer, it also
   offers flexibility in terms of what particular package will deliver
   the functionality requested like that, making the dependency
   expressed the most descriptive way at our disposal in Fedora

4. I mean, it may make reasons for test builds, but it will be
   catching eyes of anyone working on downstream packages needlessly

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

[Bug 1507103] Review Request: kronosnet - Multipoint-to-Multipoint network abstraction layer for High Availability applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103



--- Comment #29 from digimer  ---
1. Yes, I left it as it was based on Chrissie's (strong) comments, and that it
is easier to read on first pass.

2. Fabio confirmed that the licenses I entered are OK with him. Does this
address the license concerns, or should a README.license be created for the
RPM?

3. This is a little beyond me at this point (though I will read the link
shortly). Should Fabio/Chrissie/Others comment on this, as it sounds like an
upstream comment.

4. Certainly a comment for upstream.

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

[Bug 1533777] Review Request: rust-crypto-hash - Wrapper for OS-level cryptographic hash functions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1533777

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2018-01-31 08:53:41



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

[Bug 1540599] Review Request: rust-remove_dir_all - Safe, reliable implementation of remove_dir_all

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540599

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1540178




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540178
[Bug 1540178] rust-tempdir-0.3.6 is available
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1540599] New: Review Request: rust-remove_dir_all - Safe, reliable implementation of remove_dir_all

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540599

Bug ID: 1540599
   Summary: Review Request: rust-remove_dir_all - Safe, reliable
implementation of remove_dir_all
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ignate...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-remove_dir_all.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-remove_dir_all-0.3.0-1.fc28.src.rpm
Description:
Safe, reliable implementation of remove_dir_all.
Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain

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

[Bug 1540073] Review Request: nss_nis - Name Service Switch (NSS) module using NIS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540073

Petr Kubat  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pku...@redhat.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 1540335] Review Request: primesieve - Fast C/ C++ prime number generator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540335

Iwicki Artur  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||fed...@svgames.pl



--- Comment #1 from Iwicki Artur  ---
>Group: Development/Libraries
The "Group:" tag is not used in Fedora.

>%clean
%clean should not be used in Fedora.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections

>pushd [...]
>popd
rpmbuild resets the working directory at the start of %build, %check and
%install, so these are not needed.

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

[Bug 1539831] Review Request: nheko - Desktop client for the Matrix protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539831



--- Comment #1 from Vitaly Zaitsev  ---
Spec URL: https://github.com/EasyCoding/nheko/raw/master/nheko.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/xvitaly/matrix/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00707472-nheko/nheko-0.1.0-13.20180131git1d7548d.fc28.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 1540553] Review Request: glusterd2- new management daemon for GlusterFS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540553

Kaushal  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)




Referenced Bugs:

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

[Bug 1540553] New: Review Request: glusterd2- new management daemon for GlusterFS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540553

Bug ID: 1540553
   Summary: Review Request: glusterd2- new management daemon for
GlusterFS
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: kshlms...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kshlm/glusterd2/fedora-27-x86_64/00707457-glusterd2/glusterd2.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/kshlm/glusterd2/fedora-27-x86_64/00707457-glusterd2/glusterd2-4.0rc0-1.src.rpm

Description: GlusterD2 (GD2) is the new management daemon for the GlusterFS-4.0
release. GD2 is developed seperately from GlusterFS in its own repository at
[1] and is written in Golang.

GD2 will be released in lockstep with GlusterFS releases. So we need to get the
GD2 package accepted into Fedora for the upcoming GlusterFS-4.0 release.

I will be maintaining the GD2 package in Fedora. But I'm not yet a member of
the Fedora packagers group, and would require a sponsor.

Fedora Account System Username: kshlm

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

[Bug 1507103] Review Request: kronosnet - Multipoint-to-Multipoint network abstraction layer for High Availability applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103



--- Comment #28 from Jan Pokorný  ---
Looking at
https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet.spec.1.0-3

1. I don't see any change about the clumsy conditionals
  (is it what was meant with "I left the original"?)

2. you are right that source files appear dual-licensed, but as
   mentioned, the License tag describes license of shipped artifacts
   (built executables, libraries, etc.) not of the source files,
   and that seems refined with README.license file making it clear
   under which terms are which artefacts expected to be distributed
   (binary RPMs are a form of distribution); I think particular
   License tags should reflect that -- perhaps best checked with
   upstream

3. it's customary to specify BuildRequires dependencies that are
   sourced by using pkg-config utility (*.pc files, here through
   PKG_CHECK_MODULES() macro in configure.ac file) as
   pkgconfig(foo) -- guidelines state it as SHOULD item:

   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PkgConfigBuildRequires

   - for a start:
 libqb-devel -> pkgconfig(libqb)
 xz-devel-> pkgconfig(liblzma)
 zlib-devel  -> pkgconfig(zlib)

   - also, this is likely the first time I've seen dependency on
 *-devel packages expressed via direct header file dependency,
 though configure script also asks for pkg-config module
 explicitly at least in some instances, hence I suggest:
 /usr/include/bzlib.h-> pkgconfig(bzip2)
 /usr/include/lz4hc.h-> pkgconfig(liblz4)
 /usr/include/nss3/nss.h -> pkgconfig(nss)
 /usr/include/openssl/conf.h -> pkgconfig(openssl)

4. what's the purpose of fiddling with debug packages that has been
   added since last time?  it's likely inappropriate here

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

[Bug 1540347] Review Request: hashcat - password recovery utility

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1540347

Jaroslav Škarvada  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||jskar...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jskar...@redhat.com



--- Comment #2 from Jaroslav Škarvada  ---
(In reply to Itamar Reis Peixoto from comment #1)
> please use fedorapeople to host your spec files and src.rpm, thank you.

From [1]:
> Upload Your Package
>
> Upload your SRPM and SPEC files onto the Internet somewhere so that others can
> retrieve them. This can be anywhere accessible by a URL, but it is important
> that the files be directly accessible, not hidden behind some service that
> makes people wait to download things or redirects through advertising pages. 

The leteckaposta.cz is "somewhere", but the files are not directly
downloadable, and I wasn't able to retreive them - I tried Firefox and
Seamonkey browsers, but no luck, for me it worked only with the Chrome browser,
so it should be fixed.

Yes, it's generally better to use the fedorapeople to host the spec/srpm, but
Tomas is not Fedora packager yes, so he doesn't have account there, i.e. he
hasn't fulfilled the CLA+1 condition yet [2].

[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Upload_Your_Package
[2]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/fedorapeople.org#Accessing_Your_fedorapeople.org_Space

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

[Bug 1507103] Review Request: kronosnet - Multipoint-to-Multipoint network abstraction layer for High Availability applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507103

Jan Pokorný  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jpoko...@redhat.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