[Bug 1553967] New: Review Request: rust-indexmap - Hash table with consistent order and fast iteration

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553967

Bug ID: 1553967
   Summary: Review Request: rust-indexmap - Hash table with
consistent order and fast iteration
   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-indexmap.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-indexmap-0.4.1-1.fc29.src.rpm
Description:
Hash table with consistent order and fast iteration.
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 1553867] Review Request: python-flask-sphinx-themes - Sphinx themes for Flask and related projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553867



--- Comment #2 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4957

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product 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 #85 from digimer  ---
Removed the 'pkgconfig()' method of handling BuildRequires.


New .spec and srpm:
https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet.spec.1.1-8
https://www.alteeve.com/an-repo/files/packages/kronosnet-1.1-8.fc27.src.rpm

f26:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25592451

f27:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25592465

f28:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25592473

rawhide:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25592491

epel7:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25592503


Diff from 1.1-7:

--- kronosnet.spec.1.1-72018-03-07 01:50:40.831722937 -0500
+++ kronosnet.spec.1.1-82018-03-09 19:48:42.630061443 -0500
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@
 Name: kronosnet
 Summary: Multipoint-to-Multipoint VPN daemon
 Version: 1.1
-Release: 7%{?dist}
+Release: 8%{?dist}
 License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+
 URL: http://www.kronosnet.org
 Source0: http://www.kronosnet.org/releases/kronosnet-%{version}.tar.gz
@@ -79,27 +79,27 @@
 BuildRequires: gcc
 # required to build man pages
 BuildRequires: libxml2-devel doxygen
-BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libqb)
+BuildRequires: libqb-devel
 %if %{defined buildsctp}
 BuildRequires: lksctp-tools-devel
 %endif
 %if %{defined buildcryptonss}
-BuildRequires: pkgconfig(nss)
+BuildRequires: nss-devel
 %endif
 %if %{defined buildcryptoopenssl}
-BuildRequires: pkgconfig(openssl)
+BuildRequires: openssl-devel
 %endif
 %if %{defined buildcompresszlib}
-BuildRequires: pkgconfig(zlib)
+BuildRequires: zlib-devel
 %endif
 %if %{defined buildcompresslz4}
-BuildRequires: pkgconfig(liblz4) >= 1.7
+BuildRequires: lz4-devel
 %endif
 %if %{defined buildcompresslzo2}
 BuildRequires: lzo-devel
 %endif
 %if %{defined buildcompresslzma}
-BuildRequires: pkgconfig(liblzma)
+BuildRequires: xz-devel
 %endif
 %if %{defined buildcompressbzip2}
 BuildRequires: bzip2-devel
@@ -470,6 +470,10 @@
 %endif

 %changelog
+* Fri Mar 09 2018 Madison Kelly  - 1.1-8
+- Changed pkgconfig() to normal package names to help avoid the wrong
+  package being pulled in to satisfy dependencies.
+
 * Wed Mar 07 2018 Madison Kelly  - 1.1-7
 - Moved the comment back above '%%files -n libknet1-devel'.
 - Added comment to '%%debug_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 1553639] Review Request: rust-hyper - Modern HTTP library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553639



--- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2)
> Works fine with tokio-core v0.1.13 from bug #1553572. Maybe bump the minimal
> requirements?

It's some regression in tokio, so it's tokio-core should bump requirements. I
will sort it out.

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

[Bug 1551107] Review Request: nulib2 - Disk and file archive program for NuFX (.SDK, .BXY) archives

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551107



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
nulib2-3.1.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-37ebe4bcb0

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

[Bug 1551107] Review Request: nulib2 - Disk and file archive program for NuFX (.SDK, .BXY) archives

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551107

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 1551107] Review Request: nulib2 - Disk and file archive program for NuFX (.SDK, .BXY) archives

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551107



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
nulib2-3.1.0-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-d1febdf5bd

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

[Bug 1553944] New: Review Request: R-webp - A New Format for Lossless and Lossy Image Compression

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553944

Bug ID: 1553944
   Summary: Review Request: R-webp - A New Format for Lossless and
Lossy Image Compression
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: quantum.anal...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org




Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-webp.spec
SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-webp-0.4-1.fc27.src.rpm

Description:
Lossless webp images are 26% smaller in size compared to PNG. Lossy webp
images are 25-34% smaller in size compared to JPEG. This package reads and
writes webp images into a 3 (rgb) or 4 (rgba) channel bitmap array using
conventions from the 'jpeg' and 'png' packages.

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

[Bug 1553944] Review Request: R-webp - A New Format for Lossless and Lossy Image Compression

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553944



--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25591013

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

[Bug 1553730] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-bbolt - An embedded key /value database for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553730

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-coreos-bbolt-1.3.1-0.1.coreos.5.20180309git32c383e.fc28 has been
pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-9098bc744b

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

[Bug 1553054] Review Request: R-bit - A class for vectors of 1-bit booleans

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553054



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
R-bit-1.1.12-2.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-4a613802ad

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

[Bug 1553082] Review Request: R-webutils - Utility Functions for Developing Web Applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553082



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
R-webutils-0.6-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-cc9d20edeb

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

[Bug 1553049] Review Request: R-gdtools - Utilities for Graphical Rendering

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553049



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
R-gdtools-0.1.7-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-15ad764a12

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

[Bug 1553053] Review Request: R-fastmatch - Fast match() function

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553053



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
R-fastmatch-1.1.0-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-6485910c93

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

[Bug 1553684] Rename-Review Request: gnome-tweaks - Customize advanced GNOME 3 options

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553684

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
gnome-tweaks-3.27.92-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-a545376f62

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

[Bug 1553015] Review Request: R-disposables - Create Disposable R Packages for Testing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553015



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
R-disposables-1.0.3-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-9189340438

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

[Bug 1553560] Review Request: R-pkgconfig - Private Configuration for 'R' Packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553560



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
R-pkgconfig-2.0.1-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-d0508576de

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

[Bug 1553560] Review Request: R-pkgconfig - Private Configuration for 'R' Packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553560

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 1553560] Review Request: R-pkgconfig - Private Configuration for 'R' Packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553560



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
R-pkgconfig-2.0.1-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-41ebcde59c

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

[Bug 1553560] Review Request: R-pkgconfig - Private Configuration for 'R' Packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553560



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
R-pkgconfig-2.0.1-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-5c5095ba05

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

[Bug 1551402] Review Request: falkon - Modern web browser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551402

Kevin Kofler  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(ngomp...@gmail.co
   ||m)



--- Comment #7 from Kevin Kofler  ---
Ping? Can we move forward with this?

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

[Bug 1553891] Review Request: nodejs-pg-native - High performance native bindings between node.js and PostgreSQL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553891



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

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

[Bug 1553560] Review Request: R-pkgconfig - Private Configuration for 'R' Packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553560



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

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

[Bug 1553891] Review Request: nodejs-pg-native - High performance native bindings between node.js and PostgreSQL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553891

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 =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 33 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/nodejs-pg-native
 /review-nodejs-pg-native/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all 

[Bug 1553867] Review Request: python-flask-sphinx-themes - Sphinx themes for Flask and related projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553867

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 =

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 (unspecified)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright*
 BSD (unspecified)". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-flask-sphinx-themes
 /review-python-flask-sphinx-themes/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]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python2
 -flask-sphinx-themes , python3-flask-sphinx-themes
[?]: 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
 

[Bug 1553639] Review Request: rust-hyper - Modern HTTP library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553639

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Works fine with tokio-core v0.1.13 from bug #1553572. Maybe bump the minimal
requirements?

 - License ok
 - Latest version packaged
 - 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 1553639] Review Request: rust-hyper - Modern HTTP library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553639

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Build error:

BUILDSTDERR:Compiling tokio-core v0.1.12
BUILDSTDERR:  Running `/usr/bin/rustc --crate-name tokio_core
/usr/share/cargo/registry/tokio-core-0.1.12/src/lib.rs --crate-type lib
--emit=dep-info,link -C opt-level=3 -C metadata=84504471d9c2cb31 -C
extra-filename=-84504471d9c2cb31 --out-dir
/builddir/build/BUILD/hyper-0.11.22/target/release/deps -L
dependency=/builddir/build/BUILD/hyper-0.11.22/target/release/deps --extern
log=/builddir/build/BUILD/hyper-0.11.22/target/release/deps/liblog-129ea5bbac2dadda.rlib
--extern
futures=/builddir/build/BUILD/hyper-0.11.22/target/release/deps/libfutures-98f50b5ddb4b0aa3.rlib
--extern
slab=/builddir/build/BUILD/hyper-0.11.22/target/release/deps/libslab-b17f549fb7b4bc0c.rlib
--extern
bytes=/builddir/build/BUILD/hyper-0.11.22/target/release/deps/libbytes-e80650f556e05ce6.rlib
--extern
tokio_io=/builddir/build/BUILD/hyper-0.11.22/target/release/deps/libtokio_io-68b9f7afb436dc4a.rlib
--extern
iovec=/builddir/build/BUILD/hyper-0.11.22/target/release/deps/libiovec-e4757dc54099439a.rlib
--extern
mio=/builddir/build/BUILD/hyper-0.11.22/target/release/deps/libmio-015995e705c15631.rlib
--extern
scoped_tls=/builddir/build/BUILD/hyper-0.11.22/target/release/deps/libscoped_tls-7dc00805d71a4171.rlib
--cap-lints allow -Copt-level=3 -Cdebuginfo=2 -Clink-arg=-Wl,-z,relro,-z,now`
BUILDSTDERR: error[E0061]: this function takes 1 parameter but 0 parameters
were supplied
BUILDSTDERR:-->
/usr/share/cargo/registry/tokio-core-0.1.12/src/reactor/poll_evented.rs:276:39
BUILDSTDERR: |
BUILDSTDERR: 276 | if let Async::NotReady = self.poll_read() {
BUILDSTDERR: |   ^ expected 1
parameter
BUILDSTDERR: error[E0308]: mismatched types
BUILDSTDERR:-->
/usr/share/cargo/registry/tokio-core-0.1.12/src/reactor/poll_evented.rs:276:16
BUILDSTDERR: |
BUILDSTDERR: 276 | if let Async::NotReady = self.poll_read() {
BUILDSTDERR: |^^^ expected enum
`std::result::Result`, found enum `futures::Async`
BUILDSTDERR: |
BUILDSTDERR: = note: expected type
`std::result::Result`
BUILDSTDERR:found type `futures::Async<_>`
BUILDSTDERR: error[E0061]: this function takes 1 parameter but 0 parameters
were supplied
BUILDSTDERR:-->
/usr/share/cargo/registry/tokio-core-0.1.12/src/reactor/poll_evented.rs:289:39
BUILDSTDERR: |
BUILDSTDERR: 289 | if let Async::NotReady = self.poll_write() {
BUILDSTDERR: |   ^^ expected 1
parameter
BUILDSTDERR: error[E0308]: mismatched types
BUILDSTDERR:-->
/usr/share/cargo/registry/tokio-core-0.1.12/src/reactor/poll_evented.rs:289:16
BUILDSTDERR: |
BUILDSTDERR: 289 | if let Async::NotReady = self.poll_write() {
BUILDSTDERR: |^^^ expected enum
`std::result::Result`, found enum `futures::Async`
BUILDSTDERR: |
BUILDSTDERR: = note: expected type
`std::result::Result`
BUILDSTDERR:found type `futures::Async<_>`
BUILDSTDERR: error[E0061]: this function takes 1 parameter but 0 parameters
were supplied
BUILDSTDERR:-->
/usr/share/cargo/registry/tokio-core-0.1.12/src/reactor/poll_evented.rs:300:39
BUILDSTDERR: |
BUILDSTDERR: 300 | if let Async::NotReady = self.poll_write() {
BUILDSTDERR: |   ^^ expected 1
parameter
BUILDSTDERR: error[E0308]: mismatched types
BUILDSTDERR:-->
/usr/share/cargo/registry/tokio-core-0.1.12/src/reactor/poll_evented.rs:300:16
BUILDSTDERR: |
BUILDSTDERR: 300 | if let Async::NotReady = self.poll_write() {
BUILDSTDERR: |^^^ expected enum
`std::result::Result`, found enum `futures::Async`
BUILDSTDERR: |
BUILDSTDERR: = note: expected type
`std::result::Result`
BUILDSTDERR:found type `futures::Async<_>`
BUILDSTDERR: error[E0061]: this function takes 1 parameter but 0 parameters
were supplied
BUILDSTDERR:-->
/usr/share/cargo/registry/tokio-core-0.1.12/src/reactor/poll_evented.rs:335:39
BUILDSTDERR: |
BUILDSTDERR: 335 | if let Async::NotReady = self.poll_read() {
BUILDSTDERR: |   ^ expected 1
parameter
BUILDSTDERR: error[E0308]: mismatched types
BUILDSTDERR:-->
/usr/share/cargo/registry/tokio-core-0.1.12/src/reactor/poll_evented.rs:335:16
BUILDSTDERR: |
BUILDSTDERR: 335 | if let Async::NotReady = self.poll_read() {
BUILDSTDERR: |

[Bug 1553635] Review Request: rust-language-tags - Language tags for Rust

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553635

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  ---
 - License ok
 - Latest version packaged
 - 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 1553615] Review Request: rust-tokio - Platform for writing asynchronous I/O backed applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553615

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  ---
 - License ok
 - Latest version is 0.1.3 published on March 9th
 - Builds in mock
 - No rpmlint errors

Package approved. Please bump to version 0.1.3 before import.

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

[Bug 1553610] Review Request: rust-http - Set of types for representing HTTP requests and responses

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553610

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  ---
 - License ok
 - Latest versionpackaged
 - 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 1553891] Review Request: nodejs-pg-native - High performance native bindings between node.js and PostgreSQL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553891

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806
[Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1553891] Review Request: nodejs-pg-native - High performance native bindings between node.js and PostgreSQL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553891



--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25586620

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

[Bug 1553891] New: Review Request: nodejs-pg-native - High performance native bindings between node.js and PostgreSQL

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553891

Bug ID: 1553891
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-pg-native - High performance
native bindings between node.js and PostgreSQL
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: t...@compton.nu
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org




Spec URL: http://tomh.fedorapeople.org//nodejs-pg-native.spec
SRPM URL: http://tomh.fedorapeople.org//nodejs-pg-native-2.2.0-1.fc27.src.rpm

Description:
High performance native bindings between node.js and PostgreSQL via
libpq with a simple API.

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

[Bug 1553597] Review Request: rust-tokio-reactor - Event loop that drives Tokio I/O resources

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553597

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  ---
 - License ok
 - Latest versionpackaged
 - 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 1553601] Review Request: rust-tokio-threadpool - Task scheduler backed by a work-stealing thread pool

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553601

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  ---
 - License ok
 - Latest versionpackaged
 - 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 1553866] Review Request: nodejs-libpq - Node native bindings to the PostgreSQL libpq C client library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553866



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

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

[Bug 1553596] Review Request: rust-tokio-executor - Future execution primitives

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553596

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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

[Bug 1553596] Review Request: rust-tokio-executor - Future execution primitives

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553596

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - License ok
 - Latest versionpackaged
 - 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 1553866] Review Request: nodejs-libpq - Node native bindings to the PostgreSQL libpq C client library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553866

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  ---
 - Tests fail in fedora-review:

+ pg_ctl start -w -D pg_data -l pg_log -o '-k /builddir/build/BUILD/package -p
12345'
waiting for server to start done
server started
+ createdb -h /builddir/build/BUILD/package -p 12345 test
+ PGHOST=/builddir/build/BUILD/package
+ PGPORT=12345
+ PGDATABASE=test
+ /usr/bin/mocha -t 1
  async connection

✓ works

✓ works with hard-coded connection parameters

1) returns an error to the callback if connection fails
  2 passing (10s)
  1 failing
  1) async connection returns an error to the callback if connection fails:
 Error: timeout of 1ms exceeded. Ensure the done() callback is being
called in this test.

BUILDSTDERR: erreur : Mauvais statut de sortie pour /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ftIlhM
(%check)


Seems to work in Koji though:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25585943

Everything else is fine so 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 1550317] Review Request: python-flask-security - Flask-Security quickly adds security features to your Flask application

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550317

Itamar Reis Peixoto  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Depends On||1553867




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553867
[Bug 1553867] Review Request: python-flask-sphinx-themes - Sphinx themes
for Flask and related projects
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1553867] Review Request: python-flask-sphinx-themes - Sphinx themes for Flask and related projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553867

Itamar Reis Peixoto  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1550317




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1550317
[Bug 1550317] Review Request: python-flask-security - Flask-Security
quickly adds security features to your Flask application
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1553867] New: Review Request: python-flask-sphinx-themes - Sphinx themes for Flask and related projects

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553867

Bug ID: 1553867
   Summary: Review Request: python-flask-sphinx-themes - Sphinx
themes for Flask and related projects
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: ita...@ispbrasil.com.br
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-sphinx-themes.spec

SRPM URL:
https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-sphinx-themes-1.0.2-1.fc27.src.rpm

Description: Sphinx themes for Flask and related projects

Fedora Account System Username: itamarjp

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

[Bug 1519790] Review Request: rust-seahash - Blazingly fast, portable hash function with proven statistical guarantees

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519790

Josh Stone  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||jist...@redhat.com
   Fixed In Version||rust-seahash-3.0.5-3.fc29
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2018-03-09 13:38:40



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

[Bug 1553835] Review Request: utop - Improved toplevel for OCaml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553835

Sergey Avseyev  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: ocaml-utop  |Review Request: utop -
   |- Improved toplevel for |Improved toplevel for OCaml
   |OCaml   |



--- Comment #4 from Sergey Avseyev  ---
I've renamed package and applied other notes:

Spec URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/utop/0/utop.spec
SRPM URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/utop/0/utop-2.1.0-1.fc29.src.rpm
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25585813

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

[Bug 1553802] Review Request: gnome-usage - a system resources visualizer for GNOME

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553802

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Fix the license as mentinned by Yanko


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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or
 generated", "*No copyright* GPL", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1 or
 later)". 74 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/gnome-usage/review-gnome-
 usage/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
 desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1553866] Review Request: nodejs-libpq - Node native bindings to the PostgreSQL libpq C client library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553866

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806
[Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1553866] Review Request: nodejs-libpq - Node native bindings to the PostgreSQL libpq C client library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553866



--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25585484

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

[Bug 1553866] New: Review Request: nodejs-libpq - Node native bindings to the PostgreSQL libpq C client library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553866

Bug ID: 1553866
   Summary: Review Request: nodejs-libpq - Node native bindings to
the PostgreSQL libpq C client library
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: t...@compton.nu
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org




Spec URL: http://tomh.fedorapeople.org//nodejs-libpq.spec
SRPM URL: http://tomh.fedorapeople.org//nodejs-libpq-1.8.7-1.fc27.src.rpm

Description:
Node native bindings to the PostgreSQL libpq C client library. This module
attempts to mirror as closely as possible the C API provided by libpq and
provides the absolute minimum level of abstraction. It is intended to be
extremely low level and allow you the same access as you would have to libpq
directly from C, except in node.js! The obvious trade-off for being "close to
the metal" is having to use a very "c style" API in JavaScript.

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

[Bug 1553632] Review Request: perl-GooCanvas2 - Perl binding for GooCanvas2 widget using Glib::Object:: Introspection

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553632

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  ---
URL and Source addresses are Ok.
Source archive (SHA-256:
e24c87873e19063dd4d5e2c709caacf8c0ae8881044395bb865dc2b4fdd63b50) is original.
Ok.
Summary verified from lib/GooCanvas2.pm. Ok.
Description verified from lib/GooCanvas2.pm. Ok.
License verified from lib/GooCanvas2.pm and README. Ok.
No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok.

All tests pass. Ok.

$ rpmlint perl-GooCanvas2.spec
review-perl-GooCanvas2/results/perl-GooCanvas2-0.06-1.fc29.noarch.rpm
review-perl-GooCanvas2/results/perl-GooCanvas2-0.06-1.fc29.src.rpm 
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpm -q -lv -p perl-GooCanvas2-0.06-1.fc29.noarch.rpm18:53:52
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 mars  9 18:51
/usr/share/doc/perl-GooCanvas2
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot  811 juin 19  2017
/usr/share/doc/perl-GooCanvas2/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot  876 juin 18  2017
/usr/share/doc/perl-GooCanvas2/README
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3229 mars  9 18:51
/usr/share/man/man3/GooCanvas2.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 7283 juin 19  2017
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/GooCanvas2.pm
File permissions and layout are Ok.

rpm -q --requires -p perl-GooCanvas2-0.06-1.fc29.noarch.rpm | sort -f | uniq -c
  1 goocanvas2 >= 2.0
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.26.1)
  1 perl(:VERSION) >= 5.6.0
  1 perl(Glib::Object::Introspection)
  1 perl(strict)
  1 perl(warnings)
  1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
Binary requires are Ok.

$ rpm -q --provides -p perl-GooCanvas2-0.06-1.fc29.noarch.rpm 
perl(GooCanvas2) = 0.06
perl(GooCanvas2::Canvas) = 0.06
perl-GooCanvas2 = 0.06-1.fc29
Binary provides are Ok.

Package builds in F28
(https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25585468)
Ok

The package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines.

Resolution: 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 1553622] Review Request: perl-Gtk3-SimpleList - Simple interface to Gtk3's complex MVC list widget

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553622

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  ---
URL and Source addresses are Ok.
Source archive (SHA-256:
ed201f74a9ff3542b7cc260159e87ca5894c24a5b182a39d6f86bb84669c9053) is original.
Ok.
Summary verified from lib/Gtk3/SimpleList.pm. Ok.
Description verified from lib/Gtk3/SimpleList.pm. Ok.
License verified from llib/Gtk3/SimpleList.pm and README.md. Ok.
No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok.

All tests pass. Ok.

$ rpmlint perl-Gtk3-SimpleList.spec
review-perl-Gtk3-SimpleList/results/perl-Gtk3-SimpleList-0.17-1.fc29.noarch.rpm
review-perl-Gtk3-SimpleList/results/perl-Gtk3-SimpleList-0.17-1.fc29.src.rpm 
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpm -q -lv perl-Gtk3-SimpleList-0.17-1.fc29.noarch.rpm  18:37:31
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 mars  9 18:33
/usr/share/doc/perl-Gtk3-SimpleList
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot  128 nov. 23  2013
/usr/share/doc/perl-Gtk3-SimpleList/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1326 nov. 23  2013
/usr/share/doc/perl-Gtk3-SimpleList/README
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 mars  9 18:33
/usr/share/licenses/perl-Gtk3-SimpleList
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot26527 avril  1  2012
/usr/share/licenses/perl-Gtk3-SimpleList/COPYING
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 5957 mars  9 18:33
/usr/share/man/man3/Gtk3::SimpleList.3pm.gz
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 mars  9 18:33
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Gtk3
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot24594 nov.  6 08:57
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Gtk3/SimpleList.pm

File permissions and layout are Ok.

$ rpm -q --requires -p perl-Gtk3-SimpleList-0.17-1.fc29.noarch.rpm  | sort -f |
uniq -c
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.26.1)
  1 perl(Carp)
  1 perl(Data::Dumper)
  1 perl(Gtk3)
  1 perl(strict)
  1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
Binary requires are Ok.

$ rpm -q --provides -p perl-Gtk3-SimpleList-0.17-1.fc29.noarch.rpm 
perl(Gtk3::SimpleList) = 0.17
perl(Gtk3::SimpleList::TiedList)
perl(Gtk3::SimpleList::TiedRow)
perl-Gtk3-SimpleList = 0.17-1.fc29
Binary provides are Ok.

Package builds in F28:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25585295
Ok

The package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines.

Resolution: 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 1553835] Review Request: ocaml-utop - Improved toplevel for OCaml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553835



--- Comment #3 from Sergey Avseyev  ---
Thanks for the notes, I will fix and update SRPM.

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

[Bug 1553835] Review Request: ocaml-utop - Improved toplevel for OCaml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553835

Ben Rosser  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rosser@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from Ben Rosser  ---
Hi Sergey,

I was planning to submit a review ticket for this but hadn't gotten to it. I'm
happy to review it for you. :)

A few immediate thoughts:

1) It may just be personal preference, but I would suggest Providing "utop", as
this is both a library and application package. (I was going to name the
package "utop" and provide ocaml-utop).

2) If you BuildRequires: opam-installer, you can use the following to install:

export OCAMLFIND_DESTDIR=%{buildroot}%{_libdir}/ocaml
mkdir -p $OCAMLFIND_DESTDIR
jbuilder install --prefix %{buildroot}%{_prefix}

This doesn't *completely* do the right thing; I've found that it puts man pages
in the wrong place, for instance. But it's a bit better than manually copying
over all the files.

3) You likely need to Require emacs-filesystem, as I believe 
{_emacs_sitelispdir} will otherwise not be owned.

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

[Bug 1553560] Review Request: R-pkgconfig - Private Configuration for 'R' Packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553560

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


Issues:
===
- Package have the default element marked as %%doc :DESCRIPTION


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/R-pkgconfig/review-R-pkgconfig/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: 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.
[x]: Package requires R-core.

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1553391] Review Request: nodejs-okay - Bubble errors back up your big ol' nested callback chain

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553391



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

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

[Bug 1553496] Review Request: libusbauth-configparser, usbauth, usbauth-notifier - USB Firewall including flex/bison parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553496

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
1 Review per bug, please open 3 bugs if you have 3 packages to review.

 - Not needed in Fedora:
   - Group: 
   - BuildRoot:  %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-build
   - %defattr(-,root,root)

 - If you install libraries, you must run %ldconfig_scriptlets after %install
instead of:

%post -n %{name}1 -p /sbin/ldconfig

%postun -n %{name}1 -p /sbin/ldconfig

 - What do you create a "%{name}1" subpackage? This is useless, putthe files in
the main package.

 - Release must start at 1 and contains %{?dist}:

Release:   1%{?dist}

 - Not needed: %{!?_udevrulesdir: %global _udevrulesdir %(pkg-config
--variable=udevdir udev)/rules.d }

 - Don't mix SUSE stuff in a Fedora package

 - %config → %config(noreplace)

 - Not needed:

%post
%{?udev_rules_update:%udev_rules_update}

%postun
%{?udev_rules_update:%udev_rules_update}

 - Source0: must be an URL pointing to the upstream archive. For ex:

Source0:
https://github.com/kochstefan/usbauth-all/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

 - License:LGPL-2.1 License:GPL-2.0 

These are not valid license shourthand. See the list of valid license:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses

 - Changelog must not be empty.

 - See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UsersAndGroups#Dynamic_allocation for
how to add users and groups

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

[Bug 1553447] Review Request: python-backoff - Python library providing function decorators for configurable backoff and retry

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553447

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 #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
It seens to also be compatible with python 2, you don't want to provide the Py2
package?



Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 21 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/python-backoff/review-python-
 backoff/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 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]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1553835] Review Request: ocaml-utop - Improved toplevel for OCaml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553835



--- Comment #1 from Sergey Avseyev  ---
Fixed version in changelog

Spec URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-utop/1/ocaml-utop.spec
SRPM URL:
https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-utop/1/ocaml-utop-2.1.0-1.fc29.src.rpm
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25584658

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

[Bug 1553835] New: Review Request: ocaml-utop - Improved toplevel for OCaml

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553835

Bug ID: 1553835
   Summary: Review Request: ocaml-utop - Improved toplevel for
OCaml
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: sergey.avse...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-utop/0/ocaml-utop.spec
SRPM URL:
https://avsej.fedorapeople.org/ocaml-utop/0/ocaml-utop-2.1.0-1.fc29.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: avsej
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25584105
Description:
utop is an improved toplevel (i.e., Read-Eval-Print Loop) for
OCaml. It can run in a terminal or in Emacs. It supports line
editing, history, real-time and context sensitive completion,
colors, and more.

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

[Bug 1553391] Review Request: nodejs-okay - Bubble errors back up your big ol' nested callback chain

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553391

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 =

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: "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 6
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/nodejs-okay/review-nodejs-
 okay/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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]: %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]: Package should compile and build 

[Bug 1553377] Review Request: libyami-utils - Libyami Utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553377

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Same as before, add the commit date to your Release:

%global commit0 9b5a3111078c83ab451809b02e88e7582e59a56c
%global shortcommit0 %(c=%{commit0}; echo ${c:0:7})
%global commitdate0 20180207

   Then

Release:1.%{commitdate0}git%{shortcommit0}%{?dist}

   And:

* Thu Mar 08 2018 Nicolas Chauvet  -
1.3.0-1.20180207git9b5a311

 - Simplify Source0:

Source0:%{url}/archive/%{commit0}/%{name}-%{shortcommit0}.tar.gz


 - [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
 Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
 See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools

AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
--
  AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libyami-utils-
  9b5a3111078c83ab451809b02e88e7582e59a56c/configure.ac:189

   Replace it with LT_INIT



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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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: "Apache (v2.0)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or
 generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 18 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
 /libyami-utils/review-libyami-utils/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: 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, 

[Bug 1548077] Review Request: libyami - Yet Another Media Infrastructure

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1548077



--- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
I forgot: add a comment with the license breakdown above the license field.

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

[Bug 1548077] Review Request: libyami - Yet Another Media Infrastructure

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1548077



--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - The license is wrong: LICENSE.md is ASL 2.0 and some other parts are BSD:

BSD (3 clause)
--
libyami-40fa32e79f12c3c85c360532be00b7e4f9a35920/codecparsers/dboolhuff.LICENSE
libyami-40fa32e79f12c3c85c360532be00b7e4f9a35920/codecparsers/vp9quant.LICENSE
libyami-40fa32e79f12c3c85c360532be00b7e4f9a35920/gtestsrc/gtest/LICENSE

Please correct the license field and add the above license files with %license

 - [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
 Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
 See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools

AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found
--
  AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libyami-
  40fa32e79f12c3c85c360532be00b7e4f9a35920/configure.ac:420

   Replace this obsolete macro with LT_INIT.


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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No
 copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 65 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/libyami/review-
 libyami/licensecheck.txt
[!]: 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.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 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: 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 

[Bug 1553684] Rename-Review Request: gnome-tweaks - Customize advanced GNOME 3 options

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553684

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 1553802] Review Request: gnome-usage - a system resources visualizer for GNOME

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553802

Yanko Kaneti  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||yan...@declera.com



--- Comment #1 from Yanko Kaneti  ---
You need sponsorship to get into the packager group, so you are already set.

The license in the spec file doesn't match the source
spec says LGPLv2+   , the source files and the tarball LICENSE file say GPLv3+

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

[Bug 1553684] Rename-Review Request: gnome-tweaks - Customize advanced GNOME 3 options

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553684



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
gnome-tweaks-3.27.92-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-a545376f62

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

[Bug 1542654] Review Request: quentier - Cross-platform desktop Evernote client

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1542654



--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Removed 1024 icon size

Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eclipseo/packaging/be3e910/quentier.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/eclipseo/quentier/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00726197-quentier/quentier-0.4.0-0.1.20180301.git8226e31.fc29.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 1553082] Review Request: R-webutils - Utility Functions for Developing Web Applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553082



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
R-webutils-0.6-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-11eedbf267

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

[Bug 1553015] Review Request: R-disposables - Create Disposable R Packages for Testing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553015



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
R-disposables-1.0.3-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-0c58b6a875

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

[Bug 1553053] Review Request: R-fastmatch - Fast match() function

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553053



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
R-fastmatch-1.1.0-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b437e5cc05

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

[Bug 1553054] Review Request: R-bit - A class for vectors of 1-bit booleans

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553054



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
R-bit-1.1.12-2.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-2018-c8faeba623

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

[Bug 1553049] Review Request: R-gdtools - Utilities for Graphical Rendering

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553049



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
R-gdtools-0.1.7-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-3304815863

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

[Bug 1552767] Review Request: godot - Multi-platform 2D and 3D game engine with a feature-rich editor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1552767



--- Comment #5 from Neal Gompa  ---
(In reply to Rémi Verschelde from comment #4)
> (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #3)
> > Spec review notes:
> > 
> > > %if 0%{?mageia}
> > > BuildRequires:  appstream-util
> > > %else
> > > BuildRequires:  libappstream-glib
> > > %endif
> > 
> > This could be simplified to "BuildRequires: %{_bindir}/appstream-util"
> > 
> > "dnf install /usr/bin/appstream-util" works on both Fedora and Mageia, so I
> > would think this should work in your spec.
> 
> Sure, will do.
> 
> > > # Git commit slightly newer than 2.87
> > > # Can be unbundled if bullet 2.88+ is available
> > > Provides:   bundled(bullet) = 2.87
> > 
> > If you know the Git commit, could you put that in the Provides versioning?
> > 
> > Something like the following:
> > 
> > Provides: bundled(bullet) = 2.87+git.
> 
> Is the `+git.` standard enough? I wouldn't want
> scripts relying on parsing `bundled()` provides to break due to invalid NEVR
> expressions.
> 
> How about simply specifying the commit
> (d05ad4b821ba867dfd01f1e5f22c4d9d1bda6869) in a comment instead?
> 

You can do that too, if you'd prefer. We don't actually have any tooling for
processing bundled() Provides. It's mainly observed by humans when checking for
security issues.

> > > # Has some modifications for IPv6 support, upstream enet is unresponsive
> > > # Should not be unbundled.
> > > Provides:   bundled(enet) = 1.3.13
> > 
> > I checked into this, it seems like upstream seems to want a mailing list
> > discussion first[1]? I'm not entirely sure what this means, but it'd be nice
> > if IPv6 support was in upstream enet (there are three pull requests for
> > it...)
> > 
> > [1]: https://github.com/lsalzman/enet/issues/78
> 
> We had very lengthy discussions before deciding to vendor and modify enet
> [0].
> 
> The upstream maintainer is very uncooperative (and now, completely
> inactive), so all projects using enet have ended up forking it for their own
> usage. There is as of yet no "main" fork to use as upstream, and we
> eventually wrote our own Godot socket interface to enet, which allows for a
> much better integration than if we were using the pristine code.
> 
> So currently unbundling enet is not possible, and not desired.
> 
> [0]: https://github.com/godotengine/godot/issues/6992
> 

This is reasonable, though someone really should try to revive it properly so
forking ad infinitum goes away...

> > > # Upstream commit from 2016, newer than 1.0.0.27 which is last tag
> > > # Could be unbundled if packaged.
> > > # Godot upstream will soon deprecate this "libsimplewebm" module.
> > > Provides:   bundled(libwebm)
> > 
> > As you're an upstream developer, I would suggest that libmatroska would be a
> > better alternative to libwebm (libmatroska can parse webm containers too,
> > since they are a subset of mkv). But if you're deprecating it...
> 
> We're going to replace most audio and video plugins (apart from vorbis) by
> pluggable libraries using the GDNative interface, so that all users can
> simply pick the plugins they need without having to bundle all the world.
> 

OK.

> > > # Could be unbundled if packaged.
> > > Provides:   bundled(nanosvg)
> > 
> > If this[2] is the nanosvg in question, I can see why it's bundled instead of
> > packaged.
> > 
> > Could you indicate what commit is packaged in nanosvg? You can do something
> > like the following:
> > 
> > Provides: bundled(nanosvg) = 0-0.git.
> > 
> > [2]: https://github.com/memononen/nanosvg
> 
> That's this nanosvg yeah, so far it's not package in distros that I know of.
> I haven't actually looked into packaging it yet, but it's a header-only
> library meant to be vendored by design.
> 
> The bundled commit is 9a74da4db5ac74083e444010d75114658581b9c7. Same
> question as above regarding putting it as the bundled() version, can we
> consider that format standard? The Bundled Software policy [1] is not really
> explicit.
> 
> [1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Software_policy
> 

As I said earlier, it's mainly for humans to analyze, so there's no "standard"
aside from using a valid RPM version-release.

Since nothing is supposed to require bundled() Provides, it should be fine to
use that too..

> > > # Could be unbundled if packaged.
> > > Provides:   bundled(squish) = 1.15
> > 
> > Is there any reason it couldn't be packaged? It looks like libsquish is
> > fairly active and releases often enough.
> 
> Not that I know of, just needs someone to package it :)
> 
> As long as Godot is the only user of this dependency, and we already
> provided bundled sources, I have little incentive to package it myself. But
> if it were, it's already easy to unbundle with the `builtin_squish=no`
> argument.
> 
> The Bundled Software policy [1] doesn't explicitly require packaging
> thirdparty libraries to unbundle them, but only to use those libraries which
> are already available. Still, 

[Bug 1553730] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-bbolt - An embedded key /value database for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553730



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-coreos-bbolt-1.3.1-0.1.coreos.5.20180309git32c383e.fc27 has been
submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-36e840bcc6

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

[Bug 1553082] Review Request: R-webutils - Utility Functions for Developing Web Applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553082

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
R-webutils-0.6-1.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-db226beb70

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

[Bug 1553730] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-bbolt - An embedded key /value database for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553730

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 1553730] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-bbolt - An embedded key /value database for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553730



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-coreos-bbolt-1.3.1-0.1.coreos.5.20180309git32c383e.fc28 has been
submitted as an update to Fedora 28.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-9098bc744b

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

[Bug 1553015] Review Request: R-disposables - Create Disposable R Packages for Testing

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553015

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
R-disposables-1.0.3-1.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-2018-4df249966b

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

[Bug 1553054] Review Request: R-bit - A class for vectors of 1-bit booleans

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553054

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
R-bit-1.1.12-2.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-2018-86ef05248e

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

[Bug 1553049] Review Request: R-gdtools - Utilities for Graphical Rendering

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553049

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
R-gdtools-0.1.7-1.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-2018-804bd01758

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

[Bug 1553053] Review Request: R-fastmatch - Fast match() function

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553053

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
R-fastmatch-1.1.0-1.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-2018-601f3707b6

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

[Bug 1154750] Review Request: mozilla-privacy-badger - Protects your privacy by blocking spying ads and invisible trackers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154750

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #19 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Package is approved.

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

[Bug 1553684] Rename-Review Request: gnome-tweaks - Customize advanced GNOME 3 options

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553684



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

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

[Bug 1553684] Rename-Review Request: gnome-tweaks - Customize advanced GNOME 3 options

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553684



--- Comment #3 from Yanko Kaneti  ---
Ah, I hand't noticed the noarch thing. Sorry for the noise.

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

[Bug 1548077] Review Request: libyami - Yet Another Media Infrastructure

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1548077

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - When using a dev snapshot, you should also include the commit date in the
Release tag:

%global commit0 40fa32e79f12c3c85c360532be00b7e4f9a35920
%global shortcommit0 %(c=%{commit0}; echo ${c:0:7})
%global commitdate0 20180228

   Then

Release:2.%{commitdate0}git%{shortcommit0}%{?dist}

   And:

* Thu Mar 08 2018 Nicolas Chauvet  -
1.3.0-2.20180228git40fa32e

 - Simply use:

Source0:%{url}/archive/%{commit0}/%{name}-%{shortcommit0}.tar.gz

Also please note that there is a discrepancy in your Release tag: 2. in the
header, 3. in the %changelog.

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

[Bug 1553684] Rename-Review Request: gnome-tweaks - Customize advanced GNOME 3 options

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553684



--- Comment #2 from Mohamed El Morabity  ---
Thank you Yanko for the review :).

(In reply to Yanko Kaneti from comment #1)
> P.S. the build will fail once the removal of gcc from the buildroot goes
> through..
GNOME Tweaks only requires python3 and meson to be built. It doesn't require
any compiler.

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

[Bug 1154750] Review Request: mozilla-privacy-badger - Protects your privacy by blocking spying ads and invisible trackers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154750



--- Comment #18 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #17)
>  - I can't find any BSD code in his package. Are you sure " and BSD" is
> necessary?
> 
>  - You should own the install directory:
> 
> %files
> %license LICENSE
> %dir %{firefox_inst_dir}
> %{firefox_inst_dir}/%{ext_id}.xpi

Thanks for the review!

Spec URL:
https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mozilla-privacy-badger/mozilla-privacy-badger.spec
SRPM URL:
https://rathann.fedorapeople.org/review/mozilla-privacy-badger/mozilla-privacy-badger-2018.2.5-2.fc27.src.rpm

* Fri Mar 09 2018 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  -
2018.2.5-2
- drop BSD from license list (no BSD-licensed components anymore)
- own firefox_inst_dir

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

[Bug 1189171] Review Request: python-antlr - Python runtime support for ANTLR-generated parsers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189171

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |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 1189171] Review Request: python-antlr - Python runtime support for ANTLR-generated parsers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189171



--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-antlr-2.7.7-5.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-2a2c9fbdde

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

[Bug 1553802] New: Review Request: gnome-usage - a system resources visualizer for GNOME

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553802

Bug ID: 1553802
   Summary: Review Request: gnome-usage - a system resources
visualizer for GNOME
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: febor...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/feborges/gnome-usage/fedora-28-x86_64/00726236-gnome-usage/gnome-usage.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/feborges/gnome-usage/fedora-28-x86_64/00726236-gnome-usage/gnome-usage-3.27.92-1.fc28.src.rpm
Description: gnome-usage lets you easily visualize the use of system resources
such as CPU, memory, and storage.
Fedora Account System Username: feborges

https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Usage

I currently maintain other packages but this is the first package which I am
introducing from the beginning, so I might need a sponsor.

I am an upstream maintainer of gnome-usage, see
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-usage/blob/master/gnome-usage.doap

I have made a koji build ~>
//koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25582730

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

[Bug 1553730] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-bbolt - An embedded key /value database for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553730



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

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

[Bug 1553684] Rename-Review Request: gnome-tweaks - Customize advanced GNOME 3 options

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553684

Yanko Kaneti  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||yan...@declera.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|yan...@declera.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Yanko Kaneti  ---
Rubber stamp.

Its the same app. Nothing else is called gnome-tweaks
Provides/Obosoletes look OK.
Any and all otherissues can be addressed later

APPROVED

P.S. the build will fail once the removal of gcc from the buildroot goes
through..

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

[Bug 1553730] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-bbolt - An embedded key /value database for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553730



--- Comment #3 from Jan Chaloupka  ---
New package: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4931
New 28 branch: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4932
New f27 branch: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4933

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

[Bug 1552767] Review Request: godot - Multi-platform 2D and 3D game engine with a feature-rich editor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1552767



--- Comment #4 from Rémi Verschelde  ---
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #3)
> Spec review notes:
> 
> > %if 0%{?mageia}
> > BuildRequires:  appstream-util
> > %else
> > BuildRequires:  libappstream-glib
> > %endif
> 
> This could be simplified to "BuildRequires: %{_bindir}/appstream-util"
> 
> "dnf install /usr/bin/appstream-util" works on both Fedora and Mageia, so I
> would think this should work in your spec.

Sure, will do.

> > # Git commit slightly newer than 2.87
> > # Can be unbundled if bullet 2.88+ is available
> > Provides:   bundled(bullet) = 2.87
> 
> If you know the Git commit, could you put that in the Provides versioning?
> 
> Something like the following:
> 
> Provides: bundled(bullet) = 2.87+git.

Is the `+git.` standard enough? I wouldn't want scripts
relying on parsing `bundled()` provides to break due to invalid NEVR
expressions.

How about simply specifying the commit
(d05ad4b821ba867dfd01f1e5f22c4d9d1bda6869) in a comment instead?

> > # Has some modifications for IPv6 support, upstream enet is unresponsive
> > # Should not be unbundled.
> > Provides:   bundled(enet) = 1.3.13
> 
> I checked into this, it seems like upstream seems to want a mailing list
> discussion first[1]? I'm not entirely sure what this means, but it'd be nice
> if IPv6 support was in upstream enet (there are three pull requests for
> it...)
> 
> [1]: https://github.com/lsalzman/enet/issues/78

We had very lengthy discussions before deciding to vendor and modify enet [0].

The upstream maintainer is very uncooperative (and now, completely inactive),
so all projects using enet have ended up forking it for their own usage. There
is as of yet no "main" fork to use as upstream, and we eventually wrote our own
Godot socket interface to enet, which allows for a much better integration than
if we were using the pristine code.

So currently unbundling enet is not possible, and not desired.

[0]: https://github.com/godotengine/godot/issues/6992

> > # Upstream commit from 2016, newer than 1.0.0.27 which is last tag
> > # Could be unbundled if packaged.
> > # Godot upstream will soon deprecate this "libsimplewebm" module.
> > Provides:   bundled(libwebm)
> 
> As you're an upstream developer, I would suggest that libmatroska would be a
> better alternative to libwebm (libmatroska can parse webm containers too,
> since they are a subset of mkv). But if you're deprecating it...

We're going to replace most audio and video plugins (apart from vorbis) by
pluggable libraries using the GDNative interface, so that all users can simply
pick the plugins they need without having to bundle all the world.

> > # Could be unbundled if packaged.
> > Provides:   bundled(nanosvg)
> 
> If this[2] is the nanosvg in question, I can see why it's bundled instead of
> packaged.
> 
> Could you indicate what commit is packaged in nanosvg? You can do something
> like the following:
> 
> Provides: bundled(nanosvg) = 0-0.git.
> 
> [2]: https://github.com/memononen/nanosvg

That's this nanosvg yeah, so far it's not package in distros that I know of. I
haven't actually looked into packaging it yet, but it's a header-only library
meant to be vendored by design.

The bundled commit is 9a74da4db5ac74083e444010d75114658581b9c7. Same question
as above regarding putting it as the bundled() version, can we consider that
format standard? The Bundled Software policy [1] is not really explicit.

[1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Software_policy

> > # Could be unbundled if packaged.
> > Provides:   bundled(squish) = 1.15
> 
> Is there any reason it couldn't be packaged? It looks like libsquish is
> fairly active and releases often enough.

Not that I know of, just needs someone to package it :)

As long as Godot is the only user of this dependency, and we already provided
bundled sources, I have little incentive to package it myself. But if it were,
it's already easy to unbundle with the `builtin_squish=no` argument.

The Bundled Software policy [1] doesn't explicitly require packaging thirdparty
libraries to unbundle them, but only to use those libraries which are already
available. Still, I'm a packager and like clean things, so I might end up
packaging libsquish and thus unbundling it somewhere down the road.

> > # Can't be unbundled out-of-the-box as it uses experimental APIs available
> > # only to static linking. They're not critical features though and could
> > # maybe be patched away to link against a shared zstd.
> Provides:   bundled(zstd) = 1.3.3
> 
> Have you talked to upstream[3] about stabilizing the APIs used by Godot so
> that it can use a dynamically linked libzstd?
> 
> [3]: https://github.com/facebook/zstd

No, it's actually a Godot bug to be using experimental APIs in the first place
(just opened [2] about it). The contributor who integrated zstd likely did not
pay attention to this (those APIs are available when linking 

[Bug 1553730] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-bbolt - An embedded key /value database for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553730

Jakub Čajka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Jakub Čajka  ---
LGTM

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

[Bug 1552767] Review Request: godot - Multi-platform 2D and 3D game engine with a feature-rich editor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1552767



--- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa  ---
Spec review notes:

> %if 0%{?mageia}
> BuildRequires:  appstream-util
> %else
> BuildRequires:  libappstream-glib
> %endif

This could be simplified to "BuildRequires: %{_bindir}/appstream-util"

"dnf install /usr/bin/appstream-util" works on both Fedora and Mageia, so I
would think this should work in your spec.

> # Git commit slightly newer than 2.87
> # Can be unbundled if bullet 2.88+ is available
> Provides:   bundled(bullet) = 2.87

If you know the Git commit, could you put that in the Provides versioning?

Something like the following:

Provides: bundled(bullet) = 2.87+git.

> # Has some modifications for IPv6 support, upstream enet is unresponsive
> # Should not be unbundled.
> Provides:   bundled(enet) = 1.3.13

I checked into this, it seems like upstream seems to want a mailing list
discussion first[1]? I'm not entirely sure what this means, but it'd be nice if
IPv6 support was in upstream enet (there are three pull requests for it...)

[1]: https://github.com/lsalzman/enet/issues/78

> # Upstream commit from 2016, newer than 1.0.0.27 which is last tag
> # Could be unbundled if packaged.
> # Godot upstream will soon deprecate this "libsimplewebm" module.
> Provides:   bundled(libwebm)

As you're an upstream developer, I would suggest that libmatroska would be a
better alternative to libwebm (libmatroska can parse webm containers too, since
they are a subset of mkv). But if you're deprecating it...

> # Has custom changes to support seeking in zip archives
> # Should not be unbundled.
> Provides:   bundled(minizip) = 1.2.4

OK.

> # Could be unbundled if packaged.
> Provides:   bundled(nanosvg)

If this[2] is the nanosvg in question, I can see why it's bundled instead of
packaged.

Could you indicate what commit is packaged in nanosvg? You can do something
like the following:

Provides: bundled(nanosvg) = 0-0.git.

[2]: https://github.com/memononen/nanosvg

> # Could be unbundled if packaged.
> Provides:   bundled(squish) = 1.15

Is there any reason it couldn't be packaged? It looks like libsquish is fairly
active and releases often enough.

> # Can't be unbundled out-of-the-box as it uses experimental APIs available
> # only to static linking. They're not critical features though and could
> # maybe be patched away to link against a shared zstd.
Provides:   bundled(zstd) = 1.3.3

Have you talked to upstream[3] about stabilizing the APIs used by Godot so that
it can use a dynamically linked libzstd?

[3]: https://github.com/facebook/zstd

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

[Bug 1553730] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-bbolt - An embedded key /value database for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553730

Jakub Čajka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jca...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jca...@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 1553730] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-bbolt - An embedded key /value database for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553730

Jakub Čajka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



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

[Bug 1553730] Review Request: golang-github-coreos-bbolt - An embedded key /value database for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553730



--- Comment #1 from Jan Chaloupka  ---
The rpmlint does not like:

Forge-specific packaging variables
  forgeurl:https://github.com/coreos/bbolt
  forgesource:
https://github.com/coreos/bbolt/archive/32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14/bbolt-32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14.tar.gz
  forgesetupargs:  -n bbolt-32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14
Generic variables
  archivename: bbolt-32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14
  archiveext:  tar.gz
  archiveurl: 
https://github.com/coreos/bbolt/archive/32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14/bbolt-32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14.tar.gz
  scm: git
  tag: 
  commit:  32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14
  dist:.20180309git32c383e.fc24 (snapshot date is computed once
%{_sourcedir}/%{archivename}.%{archiveext} is available)

which is just a verbose output of the gometa macro. It can be ignored.

The same holds for /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/coreos/bbolt/.goipath. It
is a lockfile used to automatically detect import path prefixes for
auto-generated list of Provided and Required packages.

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

[Bug 1553730] New: Review Request: golang-github-coreos-bbolt - An embedded key/value database for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1553730

Bug ID: 1553730
   Summary: Review Request: golang-github-coreos-bbolt - An
embedded key/value database for Go
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jchal...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-coreos-bbolt/golang-github-coreos-bbolt.spec

SRPM URL:
https://jchaloup.fedorapeople.org/reviews/golang-github-coreos-bbolt/golang-github-coreos-bbolt-1.3.1-0.1.coreos.5.20180309git32c383e.fc24.src.rpm

Description: An embedded key/value database for Go

Fedora Account System Username: jchaloup

Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25579403

$ rpmlint
golang-github-coreos-bbolt-1.3.1-0.1.coreos.5.20180309git32c383e.fc24.src.rpm
golang-github-coreos-bbolt-devel-1.3.1-0.1.coreos.5.20180309git32c383e.fc24.x86_64.rpm
golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: W: no-%build-section
golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: E: specfile-error Forge-specific packaging
variables
golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: E: specfile-error   forgeurl:   
https://github.com/coreos/bbolt
golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: E: specfile-error   forgesource:
https://github.com/coreos/bbolt/archive/32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14/bbolt-32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14.tar.gz
golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: E: specfile-error   forgesetupargs:  -n
bbolt-32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14
golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: E: specfile-error Generic variables
golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: E: specfile-error   archivename:
bbolt-32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14
golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: E: specfile-error   archiveext:  tar.gz
golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: E: specfile-error   archiveurl: 
https://github.com/coreos/bbolt/archive/32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14/bbolt-32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14.tar.gz
golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: E: specfile-error   scm: git
golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: E: specfile-error   tag: 
golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: E: specfile-error   commit: 
32c383e75ce054674c53b5a07e55de85332aee14
golang-github-coreos-bbolt.src: E: specfile-error   dist:   
.20180309git32c383e.fc24 (snapshot date is computed once
%{_sourcedir}/%{archivename}.%{archiveext} is available)
golang-github-coreos-bbolt-devel.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/coreos/bbolt/.goipath
golang-github-coreos-bbolt-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/coreos/bbolt/.goipath
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 13 errors, 2 warnings.

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

[Bug 1551153] Review Request: tuned-profiles-nfv-host-bin - Binaries that are needed for the NFV host Tuned profile

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551153

Matěj Týč  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Matěj Týč  ---
The package is OK, I set the review flag.

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