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

[bugzilla]

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



--- Comment #71 from Sergio Monteiro Basto  ---
Hello ,

Would be an honor if you give commit access to this package, I could do the
builds and updates of this package.

I miss one word in my previous comment (*) please _build_
virtualbox-guest-additions for F28, new version 5.2.8 is not built yet in F28.

I started to test virtualbox-guest-additions package from Fedora stack (I built
it on copr) and here is the result of `modprobe vboxsf` [1] 

2 points: one, we also may build VirtualBox-kmodsrc sub-package in Fedora
package, I haven't finish my pull request for it , but could be a solution
VirtualBox-kmodsrc of Fedora have the vboxsf for vboxguest in kernel and
VirtualBox-kmodsrc of RPMFusion have vboxguest for Fedora < 28 and epel-7 

Second point, how we load vboxsf module, is need add the file
/usr/lib/modules-load.d/VirtualBox.conf with "vboxsf" to load automatically
vboxsf.ko ? 

I'm ready to remove guest-additions from RPMFusion on F28+ , I'm just waiting
for the change become smooth .

Thanks.


[1]
[  200.408370] vboxsf: loading out-of-tree module taints kernel.
[  200.408468] vboxsf: module verification failed: signature and/or required
key missing - tainting kernel
[  200.408532] vboxsf: Unknown symbol VBoxGuest_RTMemTmpFree (err 0)
[  200.408545] vboxsf: Unknown symbol VBoxGuestIDC (err 0)
[  200.408562] vboxsf: Unknown symbol VBoxGuest_RTSemFastMutexRequest (err 0)
[  200.408579] vboxsf: Unknown symbol VBoxGuest_RTSemFastMutexRelease (err 0)
[  200.408592] vboxsf: Unknown symbol VBoxGuest_RTLogRelGetDefaultInstanceEx
(err 0)
[  200.408604] vboxsf: Unknown symbol VBoxGuest_RTStrCopy (err 0)
[  200.408618] vboxsf: Unknown symbol VBoxGuest_RTErrConvertToErrno (err 0)
[  200.408638] vboxsf: Unknown symbol VBoxGuest_RTSemFastMutexCreate (err 0)
[  200.408650] vboxsf: Unknown symbol VBoxGuest_RTSemFastMutexDestroy (err 0)
[  200.408673] vboxsf: Unknown symbol VBoxGuest_RTAssertShouldPanic (err 0)
[  200.408688] vboxsf: Unknown symbol VBoxGuest_RTLogLoggerEx (err 0)
[  200.408702] vboxsf: Unknown symbol VBoxGuest_RTMemTmpAllocTag (err 0)
[  200.408718] vboxsf: Unknown symbol VBoxGuest_RTAssertMsg1Weak (err 0)
[  200.408734] vboxsf: Unknown symbol VBoxGuest_RTAssertMsg2Weak (err 0)

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

[Bug 1552033] Review Request: python-pycryptodomex - A self-contained cryptographic library for Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1552033

Elliott Sales de Andrade  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1433707
 CC||ignate...@redhat.com



--- Comment #21 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
*** Bug 1370919 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433707
[Bug 1433707] mycli-1.10.0 is available
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370919] Review Request: python-pycryptodome - Self-contained Python package of low-level cryptographic primitives

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370919

Elliott Sales de Andrade  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Last Closed||2018-03-18 00:16:14



--- Comment #11 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
Seems to have been done by someone else.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1552033 ***

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

[Bug 1500958] Review Request: python-kiwi-gtk - Framework for Python GUI applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1500958

Neal Gompa  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(karlthered@gmail. |
   |com)|



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

[Bug 1557728] New: Review Request: R-rstudioapi - Safely Access the RStudio API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557728

Bug ID: 1557728
   Summary: Review Request: R-rstudioapi - Safely Access the
RStudio API
   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-rstudioapi.spec
SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-rstudioapi-0.7-1.fc27.src.rpm

Description:
Access the RStudio API (if available) and provide informative error
messages when it's not.

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

[Bug 1557728] Review Request: R-rstudioapi - Safely Access the RStudio API

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557728



--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25777246

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

[Bug 1557727] New: Review Request: R-debugme - Debug R Packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557727

Bug ID: 1557727
   Summary: Review Request: R-debugme - Debug R Packages
   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-debugme.spec
SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-debugme-1.1.0-1.fc27.src.rpm

Description:
Specify debug messages as special string constants, and control debugging
of packages via environment variables.

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

[Bug 1557727] Review Request: R-debugme - Debug R Packages

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557727



--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25776994

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

[Bug 1557726] Review Request: R-stringdist - Approximate String Matching and String Distance Functions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557726



--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25776784

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

[Bug 1557726] New: Review Request: R-stringdist - Approximate String Matching and String Distance Functions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557726

Bug ID: 1557726
   Summary: Review Request: R-stringdist - Approximate String
Matching and String Distance Functions
   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-stringdist.spec
SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-stringdist-0.9.4.7-1.fc27.src.rpm

Description:
Implements an approximate string matching version of R's native 'match'
function. Can calculate various string distances based on edits
(Damerau-Levenshtein, Hamming, Levenshtein, optimal sting alignment),
qgrams (q- gram, cosine, jaccard distance) or heuristic metrics (Jaro,
Jaro-Winkler). An implementation of soundex is provided as well. Distances
can be computed between character vectors while taking proper care of
encoding or between integer vectors representing generic sequences.

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

[Bug 1557725] Review Request: R-whisker - {{mustache}} for R, logicless templating

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557725



--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25776650

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

[Bug 1557725] New: Review Request: R-whisker - {{mustache}} for R, logicless templating

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557725

Bug ID: 1557725
   Summary: Review Request: R-whisker - {{mustache}} for R,
logicless templating
   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-whisker.spec
SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-whisker-0.3.2-1.fc27.src.rpm

Description:
logicless templating, reuse templates in many programming languages
including R

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

[Bug 1557723] Review Request: R-rematch - Match Regular Expressions with a Nicer 'API'

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557723



--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25776396

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

[Bug 1557723] New: Review Request: R-rematch - Match Regular Expressions with a Nicer 'API'

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557723

Bug ID: 1557723
   Summary: Review Request: R-rematch - Match Regular Expressions
with a Nicer 'API'
   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-rematch.spec
SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-rematch-1.0.1-1.fc27.src.rpm

Description:
A small wrapper on 'regexpr' to extract the matches and captured groups
from the match of a regular expression to a character vector.

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

[Bug 1557722] Review Request: R-scatterplot3d - 3D Scatter Plot

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557722



--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25776183

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

[Bug 1557722] New: Review Request: R-scatterplot3d - 3D Scatter Plot

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557722

Bug ID: 1557722
   Summary: Review Request: R-scatterplot3d - 3D Scatter Plot
   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-scatterplot3d.spec
SRPM URL:
https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-scatterplot3d-0.3.41-1.fc27.src.rpm

Description:
Plots a three dimensional (3D) point cloud.

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

[Bug 1557721] New: Review Request: R-iterators - Provides Iterator Construct for R

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557721

Bug ID: 1557721
   Summary: Review Request: R-iterators - Provides Iterator
Construct for R
   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-iterators.spec
SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-iterators-1.0.9-1.fc27.src.rpm

Description:
Support for iterators, which allow a programmer to traverse through all
the elements of a vector, list, or other collection of data.

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

[Bug 1557721] Review Request: R-iterators - Provides Iterator Construct for R

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557721



--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25776115

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

[Bug 1554376] Review Request: gcompris-qt - Educational software suite for children aged 2 to 10

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1554376



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
With luck, a simple bump will work.

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

[Bug 1524133] Review Request: deepin-calculator - an easy to use calculator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1524133



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Bump to 1.0.2.

 - This:

sed -i 's|=lupdate|=lupdate-qt5|;s|=lrelease|=lrelease-qt5|' %{name}.pro

   doesn't work as there is no lupdate/lrelease in the pro file. Thus
translation fails. There's a script here: translations/translate_generation.sh
which contains lrelease that you could replace:

sed -i 's|lrelease|lrelease-qt5|' translations/translate_generation.sh


 - This scriplet is not needed anymore, it has been automated:

%post
/bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null ||:
/usr/bin/update-desktop-database -q ||:

%postun
if [ $1 -eq 0 ]; then
/bin/touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor &>/dev/null ||:
/usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache -f -t -q %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor ||:
fi
/usr/bin/update-desktop-database -q ||:

%posttrans
/usr/bin/gtk-update-icon-cache -f -t -q %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor ||:

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

[Bug 1328248] Review Request: python-pysword - Python bindings to read Sword bible files directly

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328248

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #19 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
You don't need \ at the end of the line if you use %{expand:

 - Build error:

+ cd pysword-0.2.4
BUILDSTDERR: /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.if9CI4: line 40: cd: pysword-0.2.4: No such file
or directory

   Seems the directory is suffixed by the commit hash:

%prep
%autosetup -n %{srcname}-%{version}-%{commit}


 - Date is incorrect in %changelog:

* Sun Mar 17 2018 

   Should be: Sat Mar 17

 - Tests fail

BUILDSTDERR:
==
BUILDSTDERR: ERROR: test_load_bsv_zip (tests.test_files.TestModules)
BUILDSTDERR:
--
BUILDSTDERR: Traceback (most recent call last):
BUILDSTDERR:   File
"/builddir/build/BUILD/pysword-0.2.4-46d3425a888c0667e726f6e0c7e2031daef81251/tests/test_files.py",
line 78, in test_load_bsv_zip
BUILDSTDERR: found_modules = modules.parse_modules()
BUILDSTDERR:   File
"/builddir/build/BUILD/pysword-0.2.4-46d3425a888c0667e726f6e0c7e2031daef81251/pysword/modules.py",
line 83, in parse_modules
BUILDSTDERR: zipped_module = zipfile.ZipFile(self._sword_path)
BUILDSTDERR:   File "/usr/lib64/python3.6/zipfile.py", line 1090, in __init__
BUILDSTDERR: self.fp = io.open(file, filemode)
BUILDSTDERR: FileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory:
'/builddir/build/BUILD/pysword-0.2.4-46d3425a888c0667e726f6e0c7e2031daef81251/tests/resources/bsv.zip'
BUILDSTDERR:
==
BUILDSTDERR: ERROR: test_load_chipinyin_zip (tests.test_files.TestModules)
BUILDSTDERR:
--
BUILDSTDERR: Traceback (most recent call last):
BUILDSTDERR:   File
"/builddir/build/BUILD/pysword-0.2.4-46d3425a888c0667e726f6e0c7e2031daef81251/tests/test_files.py",
line 60, in test_load_chipinyin_zip
BUILDSTDERR: found_modules = modules.parse_modules()
BUILDSTDERR:   File
"/builddir/build/BUILD/pysword-0.2.4-46d3425a888c0667e726f6e0c7e2031daef81251/pysword/modules.py",
line 83, in parse_modules
BUILDSTDERR: zipped_module = zipfile.ZipFile(self._sword_path)
BUILDSTDERR:   File "/usr/lib64/python3.6/zipfile.py", line 1090, in __init__
BUILDSTDERR: self.fp = io.open(file, filemode)
BUILDSTDERR: FileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory:
'/builddir/build/BUILD/pysword-0.2.4-46d3425a888c0667e726f6e0c7e2031daef81251/tests/resources/chipinyin.zip'
BUILDSTDERR:
==
BUILDSTDERR: ERROR: test_load_finpr_zip (tests.test_files.TestModules)
BUILDSTDERR:
--
BUILDSTDERR: Traceback (most recent call last):
BUILDSTDERR:   File
"/builddir/build/BUILD/pysword-0.2.4-46d3425a888c0667e726f6e0c7e2031daef81251/tests/test_files.py",
line 42, in test_load_finpr_zip
BUILDSTDERR: found_modules = modules.parse_modules()
BUILDSTDERR:   File
"/builddir/build/BUILD/pysword-0.2.4-46d3425a888c0667e726f6e0c7e2031daef81251/pysword/modules.py",
line 83, in parse_modules
BUILDSTDERR: zipped_module = zipfile.ZipFile(self._sword_path)
BUILDSTDERR:   File "/usr/lib64/python3.6/zipfile.py", line 1090, in __init__
BUILDSTDERR: self.fp = io.open(file, filemode)
BUILDSTDERR: FileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory:
'/builddir/build/BUILD/pysword-0.2.4-46d3425a888c0667e726f6e0c7e2031daef81251/tests/resources/FinPR.zip'
BUILDSTDERR:
==
BUILDSTDERR: ERROR: test_parse_modules_folder
(tests.test_swordModules.TestSwordModules)
BUILDSTDERR:
--
BUILDSTDERR: Traceback (most recent call last):
BUILDSTDERR:   File
"/builddir/build/BUILD/pysword-0.2.4-46d3425a888c0667e726f6e0c7e2031daef81251/tests/test_swordModules.py",
line 41, in test_parse_modules_folder
BUILDSTDERR: mods_metadata = modules.parse_modules()
BUILDSTDERR:   File
"/builddir/build/BUILD/pysword-0.2.4-46d3425a888c0667e726f6e0c7e2031daef81251/pysword/modules.py",
line 89, in parse_modules
BUILDSTDERR: for f in os.listdir(conf_folder):
BUILDSTDERR: FileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory:
'/builddir/build/BUILD/pysword-0.2.4-46d3425a888c0667e726f6e0c7e2031daef81251/tests/resources/mods.d'
BUILDSTDERR:
==
BUILDSTDERR: ERROR: test_parse_modules_zip
(tests.test_swordModules.TestSwordModules)

[Bug 1557409] Review Request: 90-Second-Portraits - Frantic street painting game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557409

Jeremy Newton  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2018-03-17 19:08:26



--- Comment #8 from Jeremy Newton  ---
Build in Rawhide. Thanks, Gwyn and Robert-André!

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25773651

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

[Bug 1557664] Review Request: python2-astropy - A Community Python Library for Astronomy ( Python2 package)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557664

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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


Package Review
==

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


= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)",
 "BSD (unspecified)", "PSF (v2)", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "*No copyright*
 BSD (unspecified)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v3)",
 "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)". 1270 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/python2-astropy/review-
 python2-astropy/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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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 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

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 

[Bug 1483339] Review Request: kiwi - A flexible operating system image builder

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483339



--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  ---
kiwi-9.13.7-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-1e2a73f7f7

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

[Bug 1483339] Review Request: kiwi - A flexible operating system image builder

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483339

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 1557661] Review Request: python-astropy-healpix - HEALPix for Astropy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557661

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 accepted.


Package Review
==

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


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: 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)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)",
 "BSD (unspecified)", "PSF (v2)", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)",
 "BSD (3 clause)". 135 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-astropy-healpix
 /review-python-astropy-healpix/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.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
 Note: Macros in: python3-astropy-healpix (description)
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 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]: 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

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 

[Bug 1556689] Review Request: python-octave-kernel - A Jupyter kernel for Octave

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556689



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-octave-kernel-0.28.3-2.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-effdf6b158

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

[Bug 1556718] Review Request: python-jupyter-c-kernel - Minimalistic C kernel for Jupyter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556718



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-jupyter-c-kernel-1.2.2-1.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-2018-508b877012

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

[Bug 1556923] Review Request: golang-github-jmank88-nuts - A collections of BoltDB utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556923



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-jmank88-nuts-0-0.1.20180316git8b28145.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-d549e9fdea

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

[Bug 1556894] Review Request: golang-github-sdboyer-constext - Cons Contexts together as a pair

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556894



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-sdboyer-constext-0-0.1.20180316git836a144.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-2018-9c72fd4fa3

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

[Bug 1556915] Review Request: golang-github-nightlyone-lockfile - Handle locking via pid files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556915



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-nightlyone-lockfile-0-0.1.20180316gite83dc5e.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-2018-78d49a4344

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

[Bug 1557664] Review Request: python2-astropy - A Community Python Library for Astronomy ( Python2 package)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557664



--- Comment #1 from Christian Dersch  ---
Additional info: This is mostly a split out from
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-astropy

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

[Bug 1557658] Review Request: python-pytest-astropy - The py.test astropy plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557658



--- Comment #2 from Christian Dersch  ---
Thank you very much for reviewing this package and its dependencies! Let me
know if you have something I can review in exchange :)

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

[Bug 1557658] Review Request: python-pytest-astropy - The py.test astropy plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557658

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 (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
 (unspecified)". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-pytest-astropy
 /review-python-pytest-astropy/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 2 files.
[ ]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.

[Bug 1556718] Review Request: python-jupyter-c-kernel - Minimalistic C kernel for Jupyter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556718



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-jupyter-c-kernel-1.2.2-1.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-c654b43f77

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

[Bug 1556689] Review Request: python-octave-kernel - A Jupyter kernel for Octave

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556689



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-octave-kernel-0.28.3-2.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-cbc8ea74e2

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

[Bug 1557644] Review Request: python-pytest-arraydiff - The py.test arraydiff plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557644

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: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
 (unspecified)". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-pytest-arraydiff
 /review-python-pytest-arraydiff/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: 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

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 1555434] Review Request: golang-github-unknwon-goconfig - Configuration file parser for the Go Programming Language

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1555434

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-unknwon-goconfig-0-0.3.20180317gitef1e4c7.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-2018-59f17ab84c

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

[Bug 1556915] Review Request: golang-github-nightlyone-lockfile - Handle locking via pid files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556915

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-nightlyone-lockfile-0-0.1.20180316gite83dc5e.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-2018-328d594b2d

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

[Bug 1556923] Review Request: golang-github-jmank88-nuts - A collections of BoltDB utilities

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556923

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-jmank88-nuts-0-0.1.20180316git8b28145.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-a67756c1d6

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

[Bug 1556689] Review Request: python-octave-kernel - A Jupyter kernel for Octave

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556689

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-octave-kernel-0.28.3-2.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-2018-846a5f761e

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

[Bug 1556718] Review Request: python-jupyter-c-kernel - Minimalistic C kernel for Jupyter

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556718

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-jupyter-c-kernel-1.2.2-1.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-e8a8c55322

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

[Bug 1555437] Review Request: golang-github-vividcortex-ewma - Exponentially Weighted Moving Average algorithms for Go

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1555437

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-vividcortex-ewma-1.1.1-4.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-e56012885f

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

[Bug 1556661] Review Request: cctz - C++ library for translating between absolute and civil times using time zone rules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556661

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
cctz-2.2-2.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-e2e56d94c6

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

[Bug 1556894] Review Request: golang-github-sdboyer-constext - Cons Contexts together as a pair

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556894

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-github-sdboyer-constext-0-0.1.20180316git836a144.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-2018-1b032fa890

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

[Bug 1557414] Review Request: python-textfsm - Python module for parsing semi-structured text into python tables

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557414

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
python-textfsm-0.3.2-1.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-2018-958935732a

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

[Bug 1555334] Review Request: golang-x-sync - Go concurrency primitives

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1555334

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-x-sync-0-0.3.20180316gitfd80eb9.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-2018-41d91bc823

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

[Bug 1556649] Review Request: golang-gopkg-sourcemap-1 - Source Maps consumer for Golang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1556649

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
golang-gopkg-sourcemap-1-1.0.5-3.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-bc1745a911

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

[Bug 1424890] Review Request: domterm - terminal emulator based on web technologies

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1424890



--- Comment #27 from Per Bothner  ---
Thanks for the feedback!  A question about the *.appdata.xml files.

I didn't find any real documentation on the  tag in either
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData#app-data-validate_usage or
https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/sect-Metadata-Application.html#spec-appdata-filespec.
The only thing I found was
https://blogs.gnome.org/hughsie/2016/01/25/appdata-and-the-gettext-domain/

I could add:
 domterm
but that seems kind-of silly when there is no translation support at this
point.

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



--- Comment #6 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
Spec URL: https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-security.spec

SRPM URL:
https://itamarjp.fedorapeople.org/review/python-flask-security-3.0.0-1.fc27.src.rpm

building html docs and man page.

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

[Bug 1557650] Review Request: python-pytest-doctestplus - The py.test doctestplus plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557650

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 (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
 (unspecified)". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-pytest-doctestplus
 /review-python-pytest-doctestplus/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: 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

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.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps 

[Bug 1557409] Review Request: 90-Second-Portraits - Frantic street painting game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557409



--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/90-Second-Portraits

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

[Bug 1557653] Review Request: python-pytest-openfiles - The py.test openfiles plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557653

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  ---
 - It would be nice to run the provided tests.

Package approved.

Package Review
==

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



= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
 (unspecified)". 15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-pytest-openfiles
 /review-python-pytest-openfiles/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 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to 

[Bug 1557657] Review Request: python-pytest-remotedata - The py.test remotedata plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557657

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 (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
 (unspecified)". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-pytest-remotedata
 /review-python-pytest-remotedata/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 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 

[Bug 1554376] Review Request: gcompris-qt - Educational software suite for children aged 2 to 10

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1554376

José Matos  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jama...@fc.up.pt



--- Comment #2 from José Matos  ---
And now 0.90 is available.
http://gcompris.net/newsall-en.html#2018-03-13

Don't you love when this happens in the middle of a 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 1557629] Review Request: R-pdftools - Text Extraction, Rendering and Converting of PDF Documents

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557629

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, NEWS
- Package requires R-core.


= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/R-pdftools/review-R-pdftools/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]: 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.

= 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]: 

[Bug 1557409] Review Request: 90-Second-Portraits - Frantic street painting game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557409



--- Comment #6 from Jeremy Newton  ---
Thank you!

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

[Bug 1557409] Review Request: 90-Second-Portraits - Frantic street painting game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557409

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
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 1328248] Review Request: python-pysword - Python bindings to read Sword bible files directly

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328248



--- Comment #18 from TR Bentley  ---
https://trb143.fedorapeople.org/python-pysword-0.2.4-1.fc27.src.rpm

https://trb143.fedorapeople.org/python-pysword.spec

Should have fixed the desc issue.

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

[Bug 1557627] Review Request: R-lazyeval - Lazy (Non-Standard) Evaluation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557627

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 :doc, DESCRIPTION
- Package requires R-core.


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: 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]: 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". 84 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/R-lazyeval/review-R-lazyeval/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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1483339] Review Request: kiwi - A flexible operating system image builder

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483339



--- Comment #22 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/kiwi

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

[Bug 1557409] Review Request: 90-Second-Portraits - Frantic street painting game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557409



--- Comment #4 from Jeremy Newton  ---
That's odd, I think I copied the wrong files or something. Anyway it should be
fixed now.

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

[Bug 1424890] Review Request: domterm - terminal emulator based on web technologies

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1424890



--- Comment #26 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
BR: gcc or g++ is also necessary now, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_GCC_from_BuildRoot.

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

[Bug 1424890] Review Request: domterm - terminal emulator based on web technologies

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1424890



--- Comment #25 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
Wow, I have to say that it has come a long way. I tried using both the browser
and qt versions, and they work very nicely.

Packaging looks good. One thing seems to be missing — validation of the
appstream files. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData#app-data-validate_usage.

validate-relax passes, but validate does not:
$  appstream-util validate /usr/share/appdata/domterm.appdata.xml
/usr/share/appdata/qtdomterm.appdata.xml
/usr/share/appdata/domterm.appdata.xml: FAILED:
• tag-missing   :  not specified
• tag-missing   :  is not present
• style-invalid : Not enough  tags, minimum is 1
• tag-missing   :  is not present
/usr/share/appdata/qtdomterm.appdata.xml: FAILED:
• tag-missing   :  not specified
• tag-missing   :  is not present
• style-invalid : Not enough  tags, minimum is 1
• tag-missing   :  is not present
Validation of files failed
(The requirements for appdata files keep evolving. So something that was
passing a few months back might not anymore.)

Package fails to build in rawhide mock:
+ autoreconf
BUILDSTDERR: configure.ac:14: error: required file 'autotools-aux/compile' not
found
BUILDSTDERR: configure.ac:14:   'automake --add-missing' can install 'compile'
BUILDSTDERR: configure.ac:10: error: required file 'autotools-aux/missing' not
found
BUILDSTDERR: configure.ac:10:   'automake --add-missing' can install 'missing'
BUILDSTDERR: autoreconf: automake failed with exit status: 1
RPM build errors:
BUILDSTDERR: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.mosYgv (%build)
BUILDSTDERR: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.mosYgv (%build)
Child return code was: 1

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

[Bug 1328248] Review Request: python-pysword - Python bindings to read Sword bible files directly

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328248



--- Comment #17 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
%description -n python3-%{srcname}
%{desc}

desc must be defined beforehand, otherwise this macro is empty. For example, in
the header you define it:

%global desc %{expand:
A native Python reader of the SWORD Project Bible Modules.
Reads SWORD bible files (not commentaries etc.)
Detection of locally installed Swrod bible modules.
Supports all known SWORD module formats (ztext, ztext4, rawtext, rawtext4)
Read from zipped modules, like those available from
http://www.crosswire.org/sword/modules/ModDisp.jsp?modType=Bibles
Cleans the extracted text of OSIS, GBF or ThML tags.
Supports both python 2 and 3 (tested with 2.7 and 3.5).}

   Then you reuse it twice:


%description
%{desc}

%package -n python3-%{srcname}
Summary:%{sum}
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}}

%description -n python3-%{srcname}
%{desc}


I'm busy right now, I'll look at it this evening or tonight, looks good
otherwise.

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

[Bug 1524133] Review Request: deepin-calculator - an easy to use calculator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1524133

sensor@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(sensor.wen@gmail. |
   |com)|



--- Comment #2 from sensor@gmail.com ---
http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/Everything/x86_64/os/Packages/d/dtkwidget-devel-2.0.6.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm

Updated the latest version of dtkwidget. Please review again.

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

[Bug 1557619] Review Request: R-RcppCCTZ - 'Rcpp' Bindings for the 'CCTZ' Library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557619

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



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



Package Review
==

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


= MUST items =

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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: 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". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/R-RcppCCTZ/review-R-RcppCCTZ/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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

= SHOULD items =

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

[Bug 1328248] Review Request: python-pysword - Python bindings to read Sword bible files directly

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328248



--- Comment #16 from TR Bentley  ---
Revised based on the previous comments.

https://trb143.fedorapeople.org/python-pysword-0.2.4-1.fc27.src.rpm

https://trb143.fedorapeople.org/python-pysword.spec

Thanks for the pointers.

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

[Bug 1557580] Review Request: perl-Spreadsheet-ParseXLSX - Parse XLSX files

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557580

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:
da4f1ab6e3dcb6322ae5ebfc7569d3272b70b27fdb206ee7fd6456097e4ff18c) is original.
Ok.
Summary verified from lib/ParseXLSX.pm. Ok.
Description verified from lib/ParseXLSX.pm. Ok.
License verified from lib/ParseXLSX.pm and README. Ok.
No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok.

All tests pass. Ok.

$ rpmlint perl-Spreadsheet-ParseXLSX.spec
review-perl-Spreadsheet-ParseXLSX/results/perl-Spreadsheet-ParseXLSX-0.27-1.fc29.noarch.rpm
review-perl-Spreadsheet-ParseXLSX/results/perl-Spreadsheet-ParseXLSX-0.27-1.fc29.src.rpm
 
perl-Spreadsheet-ParseXLSX.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
adaptor -> adapter, adapt or, adapt-or
perl-Spreadsheet-ParseXLSX.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
ParseExcel -> Parse Excel, Parse-excel, Paracelsus
perl-Spreadsheet-ParseXLSX.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.12-1
['0.27-1.fc29', '0.27-1']
perl-Spreadsheet-ParseXLSX.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US adaptor
-> adapter, adapt or, adapt-or
perl-Spreadsheet-ParseXLSX.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
ParseExcel -> Parse Excel, Parse-excel, Paracelsus
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

$ rpm -q -lv -p perl-Spreadsheet-ParseXLSX-0.27-1.fc29.noarch.rpm 
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 mars 17 14:51
/usr/share/doc/perl-Spreadsheet-ParseXLSX
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 4605 août 16  2016
/usr/share/doc/perl-Spreadsheet-ParseXLSX/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3444 mars 17 14:50
/usr/share/man/man3/Spreadsheet::ParseXLSX.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1273 mars 17 14:50
/usr/share/man/man3/Spreadsheet::ParseXLSX::Decryptor.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1279 mars 17 14:50
/usr/share/man/man3/Spreadsheet::ParseXLSX::Decryptor::Agile.3pm.gz
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 1279 mars 17 14:50
/usr/share/man/man3/Spreadsheet::ParseXLSX::Decryptor::Standard.3pm.gz
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 mars 17 14:50
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Spreadsheet
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 mars 17 14:50
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Spreadsheet/ParseXLSX
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot40468 août 16  2016
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Spreadsheet/ParseXLSX.pm
drwxr-xr-x2 rootroot0 mars 17 14:50
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Spreadsheet/ParseXLSX/Decryptor
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 6537 août 16  2016
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Spreadsheet/ParseXLSX/Decryptor.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 3273 août 16  2016
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Spreadsheet/ParseXLSX/Decryptor/Agile.pm
-rw-r--r--1 rootroot 2701 août 16  2016
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Spreadsheet/ParseXLSX/Decryptor/Standard.pm
File permissions and layout are Ok.

$ rpm -q --requires -p perl-Spreadsheet-ParseXLSX-0.27-1.fc29.noarch.rpm | sort
-f | uniq -c
  1 perl(:VERSION) >= 5.10.0
  1 perl(Archive::Zip)
  1 perl(base)
  1 perl(Crypt::Mode::CBC)
  1 perl(Crypt::Mode::ECB)
  1 perl(Digest::SHA)
  1 perl(Encode)
  1 perl(File::Temp)
  1 perl(Graphics::ColorUtils)
  1 perl(MIME::Base64)
  1 perl(OLE::Storage_Lite)
  1 perl(Scalar::Util)
  1 perl(Spreadsheet::ParseExcel) >= 0.61
  1 perl(Spreadsheet::ParseXLSX::Decryptor)
  1 perl(Spreadsheet::ParseXLSX::Decryptor::Agile)
  1 perl(Spreadsheet::ParseXLSX::Decryptor::Standard)
  1 perl(strict)
  1 perl(warnings)
  1 perl(XML::Twig)
  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-Spreadsheet-ParseXLSX-0.27-1.fc29.noarch.rpm
perl(Spreadsheet::ParseXLSX) = 0.27
perl(Spreadsheet::ParseXLSX::Decryptor) = 0.27
perl(Spreadsheet::ParseXLSX::Decryptor::Agile) = 0.27
perl(Spreadsheet::ParseXLSX::Decryptor::Standard) = 0.27
perl-Spreadsheet-ParseXLSX = 0.27-1.fc29
Binary provides are Ok.

Package builds in mock. 

***You need to add your own entry in the changelog with the correct
Version/Release***

Resolution: Package approved.

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

[Bug 1557579] Review Request: perl-Graphics-ColorUtils - Easy-to-use color space conversions and more

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557579

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  ---
URL and Source addresses are Ok.
Source archive (SHA-256:
3cd61bac56a9cf78fc132941df876292db70b872a7220ccde6eefcb36ed63604) is original.
Ok.
Summary verified from lib/ColorUtils.pm. Ok.
Description verified from lib/ColorUtils.pm. Ok.
License verified from lib/ColorUtils.pm and README. Ok.
No XS code, noarch BuildArch is Ok.

All tests pass. Ok.

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

$ rpm -q --requires -p perl-Graphics-ColorUtils-0.17-1.fc29.noarch.rpm  | sort
-f | uniq -c
  1 perl(:VERSION) >= 5.8.3
  1 perl(Carp)
  1 perl(Exporter)
  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-Graphics-ColorUtils-0.17-1.fc29.noarch.rpm 
perl(Graphics::ColorUtils) = 0.17
perl-Graphics-ColorUtils = 0.17-1.fc29
Binary provides are Ok.


Package builds in F28
(https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25765014)
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 1557664] Review Request: python2-astropy - A Community Python Library for Astronomy ( Python2 package)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557664

Christian Dersch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||115 (Astronomy-SIG)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=115
[Bug 115] Astronomy SIG - 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 1557663] Review Request: python2-astropy - A Community Python Library for Astronomy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557663

Christian Dersch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Last Closed||2018-03-17 09:32:07



--- Comment #1 from Christian Dersch  ---
Hit Enter by mistake… closing

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

[Bug 1557664] New: Review Request: python2-astropy - A Community Python Library for Astronomy ( Python2 package)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557664

Bug ID: 1557664
   Summary: Review Request: python2-astropy - A Community Python
Library for Astronomy (Python2 package)
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: lupinix.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/review/python2-astropy.spec
SRPM URL:
https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/review/python2-astropy-2.0.5-2.fc27.src.rpm

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25763501

Description:
The Astropy project is a common effort to develop a single core package 
for Astronomy.  Major packages such as PyFITS, PyWCS, vo, and asciitable 
already merged in, and many more components being worked on. In 
particular, we are developing imaging, photometric, and spectroscopic 
functionality, as well as frameworks for cosmology, unit handling, and 
coordinate transformations.

This package splits out the Python 2 parts from python-astropy package. The new
astropy releases are Python 3 only, so the Python 2 bits have to be removed
from python-astropy. As some packages, e.g. astrometry, and users still rely on
the Python 2 part, we create a separate python2-astropy package containing the
2.x version of astropy. This is the last version supporting Python 2.x and will
get upstream updates until end of 2019.

Fedora Account System Username: lupinix

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

[Bug 1557663] New: Review Request: python2-astropy - A Community Python Library for Astronomy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557663

Bug ID: 1557663
   Summary: Review Request: python2-astropy - A Community Python
Library for Astronomy
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: lupinix.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: 
SRPM URL: 

Description: 
Fedora Account System Username:

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

[Bug 1557661] Review Request: python-astropy-healpix - HEALPix for Astropy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557661

Christian Dersch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||115 (Astronomy-SIG)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=115
[Bug 115] Astronomy SIG - 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 1557661] New: Review Request: python-astropy-healpix - HEALPix for Astropy

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557661

Bug ID: 1557661
   Summary: Review Request: python-astropy-healpix - HEALPix for
Astropy
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: lupinix.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/review/python-astropy-healpix.spec
SRPM URL:
https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/review/python-astropy-healpix-0.2-1.fc27.src.rpm

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25764196

Description:
This is a BSD-licensed Python package for HEALPix, which is based on the C
HEALPix code written by Dustin Lang originally in astrometry.net, and was
added here with a Cython wrapper and expanded with a Python interface.

The package is Python 3 only as upstream project (Astropy) is going to support
Python 3 only in near future (already happened for main astropy package)

Fedora Account System Username: lupinix

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

[Bug 1557658] Review Request: python-pytest-astropy - The py.test astropy plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557658

Christian Dersch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1525736




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1525736
[Bug 1525736] python-astropy-3.0.1 is available
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1557644] Review Request: python-pytest-arraydiff - The py.test arraydiff plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557644

Christian Dersch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1557658




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557658
[Bug 1557658] Review Request: python-pytest-astropy - The py.test astropy
plugin
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1557650] Review Request: python-pytest-doctestplus - The py.test doctestplus plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557650

Christian Dersch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1557658




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557658
[Bug 1557658] Review Request: python-pytest-astropy - The py.test astropy
plugin
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1557653] Review Request: python-pytest-openfiles - The py.test openfiles plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557653

Christian Dersch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1557658




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557658
[Bug 1557658] Review Request: python-pytest-astropy - The py.test astropy
plugin
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1557657] Review Request: python-pytest-remotedata - The py.test remotedata plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557657

Christian Dersch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1557658




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557658
[Bug 1557658] Review Request: python-pytest-astropy - The py.test astropy
plugin
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1557658] Review Request: python-pytest-astropy - The py.test astropy plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557658

Christian Dersch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||115 (Astronomy-SIG)
 Depends On||1557644, 1557650, 1557653,
   ||1557657




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=115
[Bug 115] Astronomy SIG - review tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557644
[Bug 1557644] Review Request: python-pytest-arraydiff - The py.test
arraydiff plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557650
[Bug 1557650] Review Request: python-pytest-doctestplus - The py.test
doctestplus plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557653
[Bug 1557653] Review Request: python-pytest-openfiles - The py.test
openfiles plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557657
[Bug 1557657] Review Request: python-pytest-remotedata - The py.test
remotedata plugin
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1557658] New: Review Request: python-pytest-astropy - The py.test astropy plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557658

Bug ID: 1557658
   Summary: Review Request: python-pytest-astropy - The py.test
astropy plugin
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: lupinix.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/review/python-pytest-astropy.spec
SRPM URL:
https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/review/python-pytest-astropy-0.2.1-1.fc27.src.rpm

Description:
This package provides a plugin for the pytest framework that is used for
testing Astropy and its affiliated packages. 

The package is Python 3 only as upstream project (Astropy) is going to support
Python 3 only in near future (already happened for main astropy package)

Fedora Account System Username: lupinix

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

[Bug 1557657] Review Request: python-pytest-remotedata - The py.test remotedata plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557657

Christian Dersch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||115 (Astronomy-SIG)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=115
[Bug 115] Astronomy SIG - 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 1557657] New: Review Request: python-pytest-remotedata - The py.test remotedata plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557657

Bug ID: 1557657
   Summary: Review Request: python-pytest-remotedata - The py.test
remotedata plugin
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: lupinix.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/review/python-pytest-remotedata.spec
SRPM URL:
https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/review/python-pytest-remotedata-0.2.0-1.fc27.src.rpm

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25763242

Description:
The pytest-remotedataplugin allows developers to indicate which unit tests
require access to the internet, and to control when and whether such tests
should execute as part of any given run of the test suite.

The package is Python 3 only as upstream project (Astropy) is going to support
Python 3 only in near future (already happened for main astropy package)


Fedora Account System Username: lupinix

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

[Bug 1557653] New: Review Request: python-pytest-openfiles - The py.test openfiles plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557653

Bug ID: 1557653
   Summary: Review Request: python-pytest-openfiles - The py.test
openfiles plugin
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: lupinix.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/review/python-pytest-openfiles.spec
SRPM URL:
https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/review/python-pytest-openfiles-0.2.0-1.fc27.src.rpm

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25762945

Description:
The pytest-openfiles plugin allows for the detection of open I/O resources at
the end of unit tests. This is particularly useful for testing code that
manipulates file handles or other I/O resources. It allows developers to
ensure that this kind of code properly cleans up I/O resources when they are
no longer needed.

The package is Python 3 only as upstream project (Astropy) is going to support
Python 3 only in near future (already happened for main astropy package)

Fedora Account System Username: lupinix

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

[Bug 1557653] Review Request: python-pytest-openfiles - The py.test openfiles plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557653

Christian Dersch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||115 (Astronomy-SIG)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=115
[Bug 115] Astronomy SIG - 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 1557644] Review Request: python-pytest-arraydiff - The py.test arraydiff plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557644



--- Comment #1 from Christian Dersch  ---
The package is Python 3 only as upstream project (Astropy) is going to support
Python 3 only in near future (already happened for main astropy 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 1557650] Review Request: python-pytest-doctestplus - The py.test doctestplus plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557650

Christian Dersch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||115 (Astronomy-SIG)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=115
[Bug 115] Astronomy SIG - 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 1557650] New: Review Request: python-pytest-doctestplus - The py.test doctestplus plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557650

Bug ID: 1557650
   Summary: Review Request: python-pytest-doctestplus - The
py.test doctestplus plugin
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: lupinix.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL:
https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/review/python-pytest-doctestplus.spec
SRPM URL:
https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/review/python-pytest-doctestplus-0.1.2-1.fc27.src.rpm

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25762821

Description: 
The doctestplus plugin provides advanced features for testing example Python
code that is included in Python docstrings and in standalone documentation
files.

The package is Python 3 only as upstream project (Astropy) is going to support
Python 3 only in near future (already happened for main astropy package)

Fedora Account System Username: lupinix

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

[Bug 1557644] New: Review Request: python-pytest-arraydiff - The py.test arraydiff plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557644

Bug ID: 1557644
   Summary: Review Request: python-pytest-arraydiff - The py.test
arraydiff plugin
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: lupinix.fed...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org



Spec URL: https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/review/python-pytest-arraydiff.spec
SRPM URL:
https://lupinix.fedorapeople.org/review/python-pytest-arraydiff-0.2-1.fc27.src.rpm

Koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25762778

Description:
This is a py.test plugin to facilitate the generation and comparison of
data arrays produced during tests.

Fedora Account System Username: lupinix

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

[Bug 1557644] Review Request: python-pytest-arraydiff - The py.test arraydiff plugin

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557644

Christian Dersch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||115 (Astronomy-SIG)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=115
[Bug 115] Astronomy SIG - 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 1557409] Review Request: 90-Second-Portraits - Frantic street painting game

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557409



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - You didin't change the license field:

License:zlib and MIT

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

[Bug 1508950] Review Request: eccodes - a library for decoding and encoding WMO data formats

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1508950

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #28 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
%dir %{_libdir}/cmake/%{name}
%dir %{_libdir}/cmake/%{name}/cmake
%{_libdir}/cmake/%{name}/cmake/*


The cmake files should be directly under %{_libdir}/cmake/%{name}, not within a
cmake subdirectory. Probably by moving like this:

mv %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name}/cmake/*
%{buildroot}%{_libdir}/cmake/%{name}/


This is trivial to fix, package is therefore accepted.

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

[Bug 1557629] Review Request: R-pdftools - Text Extraction, Rendering and Converting of PDF Documents

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557629



--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25761233

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

[Bug 1557629] New: Review Request: R-pdftools - Text Extraction, Rendering and Converting of PDF Documents

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557629

Bug ID: 1557629
   Summary: Review Request: R-pdftools - Text Extraction,
Rendering and Converting of PDF Documents
   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-pdftools.spec
SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-pdftools-1.5-1.fc27.src.rpm

Description:
Utilities based on 'libpoppler' for extracting text, fonts, attachments
and metadata from a PDF file. Also supports high quality rendering of PDF
documents into PNG, JPEG, TIFF format, or into raw bitmap vectors for
further processing in R.

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

[Bug 1508950] Review Request: eccodes - a library for decoding and encoding WMO data formats

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1508950



--- Comment #27 from Jos de Kloe  ---
Spec URL: http://www.jdekloe.nl/Fedora/eccodes-2.7.0-1-rev3/eccodes.spec
SRPM URL:
http://www.jdekloe.nl/Fedora/eccodes-2.7.0-1-rev3/eccodes-2.7.0-1.fc27.src.rpm

Thanks again for looking at my changes.

(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #26)
> Seems upstream believe that the LGPL files are errors, and thus the whole
> project should be ASL 2.0.

changed it back again.

>  - This:
> 
> /usr/share/eccodes/cmake/eccodes-config-version.cmake
> /usr/share/eccodes/cmake/eccodes-config.cmake
> /usr/share/eccodes/cmake/eccodes-import.cmake
> /usr/share/eccodes/cmake/eccodes-targets-relwithdebinfo.cmake
> /usr/share/eccodes/cmake/eccodes-targets.cmake
> 
>I think these files should be in %{_libdir}/cmake/%{name}/. And in the
> -devel subpackage.

done

>  - Your check part is escaped:
> 
> %%check
> 
>Remove the extraneous %.

Sorry about that, stupid mistake from my side
fixed it.

New version in the URLs mentioned above.

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

[Bug 1557627] New: Review Request: R-lazyeval - Lazy (Non-Standard) Evaluation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557627

Bug ID: 1557627
   Summary: Review Request: R-lazyeval - Lazy (Non-Standard)
Evaluation
   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-lazyeval.spec
SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//R-lazyeval-0.2.1-1.fc27.src.rpm

Description:
An alternative approach to non-standard evaluation using formulas.
Provides a full implementation of LISP style 'quasiquotation', making it
easier to generate code with other code.

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

[Bug 1557627] Review Request: R-lazyeval - Lazy (Non-Standard) Evaluation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557627



--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25760780

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

[Bug 1483339] Review Request: kiwi - A flexible operating system image builder

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1483339

Fabio Valentini  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #21 from Fabio Valentini  ---
Since those two last issues are fixed:

Package Approved!

(I won't bore you with the full fedora-review output, it would now be
completely redundant with all the comments I made above.)

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