[Bug 1684719] Review Request: netdata - Real-time performance monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684719 Didier Fabert (tartare) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2019-03-19 05:55:03 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1684719] Review Request: netdata - Real-time performance monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684719 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- netdata-1.12.2-3.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-73f56470be -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1684719] Review Request: netdata - Real-time performance monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684719 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- netdata-1.12.2-3.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-f6e7515c5e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1684719] Review Request: netdata - Real-time performance monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684719 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- netdata-1.12.2-3.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-1f1ea9b9eb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1684719] Review Request: netdata - Real-time performance monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684719 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- netdata-1.12.2-3.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-71271c98ac -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1684719] Review Request: netdata - Real-time performance monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684719 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- netdata-1.12.2-3.fc30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-1d6a2bb29d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1684862] Review Request: python-dask - Parallel PyData with Task Scheduling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684862 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- python-dask-1.1.4-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1686244] Review Request: R-maps - Draw Geographical Maps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686244 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- R-maps-3.3.0-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1663348] Review Request: blogilo - Blogging Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663348 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2019-03-19 05:15:50 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- blogilo-17.08.3-13.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1665563] Review Request: python-rangehttpserver - SimpleHTTPServer with support for Range requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665563 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- python-rangehttpserver-1.2.0-9.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2019-6564f9694c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1685102] python-pycxx - update to 7.1.2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1685102 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-pycxx-7.1.2-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2019-708c08b8d0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1557371] Review Request: java-openjdk - rolling release for short term support OpenJDK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1557371 --- Comment #55 from Fedora Update System --- java-openjdk-12.0.0.33-1.ea.1.rolling.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-a57742c17b -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1685102] python-pycxx - update to 7.1.2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1685102 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-pycxx-7.1.2-1.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-2019-59e51820b6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1670656] Review Request: grafana - an open source, feature rich metrics dashboard and graph editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1670656 Nathan Scott changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1690185 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690185 [Bug 1690185] Review Request: golang-github-macaron - Productive and modular web framework in Go -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1690185] Review Request: golang-github-macaron - Productive and modular web framework in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690185 Nathan Scott changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mgood...@redhat.com, ||quantum.anal...@gmail.com, ||zebo...@gmail.com Blocks||1670656 --- Comment #1 from Nathan Scott --- Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33624211 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1670656 [Bug 1670656] Review Request: grafana - an open source, feature rich metrics dashboard and graph editor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1690185] New: Review Request: golang-github-macaron - Productive and modular web framework in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690185 Bug ID: 1690185 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-macaron - Productive and modular web framework in Go Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: nath...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://nathans.fedorapeople.org/macaron/golang-github-macaron.spec SRPM URL: https://nathans.fedorapeople.org/macaron/golang-github-macaron-1.3.2-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: Productive and modular web framework in Go Fedora Account System Username: nathans -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1670656] Review Request: grafana - an open source, feature rich metrics dashboard and graph editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1670656 Nathan Scott changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1690178 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690178 [Bug 1690178] Review Request: golang-github-inconshreveable-log15 - Simple toolkit for best-practice logging in Go -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1690178] Review Request: golang-github-inconshreveable-log15 - Simple toolkit for best-practice logging in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690178 Nathan Scott changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mgood...@redhat.com, ||quantum.anal...@gmail.com, ||zebo...@gmail.com Blocks||1670656 --- Comment #1 from Nathan Scott --- Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33624134 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1670656 [Bug 1670656] Review Request: grafana - an open source, feature rich metrics dashboard and graph editor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1690178] New: Review Request: golang-github-inconshreveable-log15 - Simple toolkit for best-practice logging in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690178 Bug ID: 1690178 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-inconshreveable-log15 - Simple toolkit for best-practice logging in Go Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: nath...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://nathans.fedorapeople.org/log15/golang-github-inconshreveable-log15.spec SRPM URL: https://nathans.fedorapeople.org/log15/golang-github-inconshreveable-log15-2.14-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: Simple toolkit for best-practice logging in Go Fedora Account System Username: nathans -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687178] Review Request: python-apprise - Push Notifications that work with just about every platform!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687178
--- Comment #25 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
(In reply to Chris Caron from comment #24)
> > - You could use sed instead of a patch to remove the shebang, it's a bbit
> > overkill for one line.
>
> This will go away in the next version as it's fixed upstream anyway.
>
> > - %{__install} → install
>
> I didn't realise we weren't supposed to use %{__rm}, %{__install}, %{__cp};
> i always thought this was a safer approach. Noted though, I'll fix this in
> the spec file too.
>
> > You still need to find a sponsor:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
>
> > (Yes I need to find time to finish the review I gave you)
>
> I honestly thought the email you sent me entitled 'Fedora packaging
> sponsorship' and the full review of another package you had me do for you
> was hinting the possibility that 'you' might be that person.
yes it is a possibility, you might still do other informal reviews and post
them here to get sponsored, in order to show that you grok the guidelines.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687178] Review Request: python-apprise - Push Notifications that work with just about every platform!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687178
--- Comment #24 from Chris Caron ---
> - You could use sed instead of a patch to remove the shebang, it's a bbit
> overkill for one line.
This will go away in the next version as it's fixed upstream anyway.
> - %{__install} → install
I didn't realise we weren't supposed to use %{__rm}, %{__install}, %{__cp}; i
always thought this was a safer approach. Noted though, I'll fix this in the
spec file too.
> You still need to find a sponsor:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
> (Yes I need to find time to finish the review I gave you)
I honestly thought the email you sent me entitled 'Fedora packaging
sponsorship' and the full review of another package you had me do for you was
hinting the possibility that 'you' might be that person.
Regardless, I'm still thankful. Thank you for taking the time anyway to review
my product and approving it. I'll follow through with the wiki link you shared
and see where it takes me.
Chris
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1670656] Review Request: grafana - an open source, feature rich metrics dashboard and graph editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1670656 Bug 1670656 depends on bug 1689600, which changed state. Bug 1689600 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-codahale-hdrhistogram - Go implementation of the High Dynamic Range (HDR) Histogram https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689600 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689600] Review Request: golang-github-codahale-hdrhistogram - Go implementation of the High Dynamic Range (HDR) Histogram
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689600 Nathan Scott changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-03-19 00:01:17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689599] Review Request: golang-github-xorm-builder - Lightweight and fast SQL builder for Go and XORM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689599 Nathan Scott changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-03-18 23:58:47 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1670656] Review Request: grafana - an open source, feature rich metrics dashboard and graph editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1670656 Bug 1670656 depends on bug 1689599, which changed state. Bug 1689599 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-xorm-builder - Lightweight and fast SQL builder for Go and XORM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689599 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1377229] Review Request: golang-github-inconshreveable-log15 - Structured, composable logging for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377229 Bug 1377229 depends on bug 1689595, which changed state. Bug 1689595 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-stack - Capture, manipulate and format Go call stacks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689595 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689595] Review Request: golang-github-stack - Capture, manipulate and format Go call stacks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689595 Nathan Scott changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-03-18 23:52:00 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1670656] Review Request: grafana - an open source, feature rich metrics dashboard and graph editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1670656 Bug 1670656 depends on bug 1689595, which changed state. Bug 1689595 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-stack - Capture, manipulate and format Go call stacks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689595 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1545479] Review Request: hcc- Heterogeneous C++ Compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545479 --- Comment #15 from Robert-André Mauchin --- This takes forever to compile. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1670656] Review Request: grafana - an open source, feature rich metrics dashboard and graph editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1670656 Bug 1670656 depends on bug 1689081, which changed state. Bug 1689081 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-xorm-core - Lightweight Go sql.DB wrapper https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689081 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689081] Review Request: golang-github-xorm-core - Lightweight Go sql.DB wrapper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689081 Nathan Scott changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-03-18 23:37:48 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689638] Review Request: golang-github-unknwon-com - Commonly used functions for the Go programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689638 Nathan Scott changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-03-18 23:31:41 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1670656] Review Request: grafana - an open source, feature rich metrics dashboard and graph editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1670656 Bug 1670656 depends on bug 1689638, which changed state. Bug 1689638 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-unknwon-com - Commonly used functions for the Go programming language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689638 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1544239] Review Request: unison248 - There is a new incompatible version of unison240
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544239 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(dper...@gmail.com ||) --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Any update? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689493] Review Request: python-zarr - An implementation of chunked, compressed, N-dimensional arrays for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689493 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Ok 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689488] Review Request: golang-github-xorm - Xorm is a simple and powerful ORM for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689488 Nathan Scott changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-03-18 23:23:05 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1670656] Review Request: grafana - an open source, feature rich metrics dashboard and graph editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1670656 Bug 1670656 depends on bug 1689488, which changed state. Bug 1689488 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-xorm - Xorm is a simple and powerful ORM for Go https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689488 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689489] Review Request: golang-github-oklog-run - Universal mechanism to manage goroutine lifecycles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689489 Nathan Scott changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-03-18 23:21:34 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1670656] Review Request: grafana - an open source, feature rich metrics dashboard and graph editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1670656 Bug 1670656 depends on bug 1689489, which changed state. Bug 1689489 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-oklog-run - Universal mechanism to manage goroutine lifecycles https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689489 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1415612] Review Request: sqlrelay - Database proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1415612 --- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin --- No update here? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1545479] Review Request: hcc- Heterogeneous C++ Compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1545479
--- Comment #14 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
%if 0%{?__isa_bits} == 64
%global build_libdir lib64/
%else
%global build_libdir lib/
%endif
- Why not use %{_lib}? It resolves to either lib or lib64 depending on the
arch.
-
-DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=%{buildroot}/usr \
→
-DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=%{buildroot}%{_prefix} \
- %{_includedir}/* in %files
Includes should go to a devel package
%{_libdir}/cmake/hcc/ too.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689493] Review Request: python-zarr - An implementation of chunked, compressed, N-dimensional arrays for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689493 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1689483 --- Comment #6 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- Fixed. Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/python-zarr.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/python-zarr-2.2.0-2.fc29.src.rpm Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689483 [Bug 1689483] Review Request: python-sphinx-issues - Sphinx extension for linking to your project's issue 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689483] Review Request: python-sphinx-issues - Sphinx extension for linking to your project's issue tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689483 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1689493 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689493 [Bug 1689493] Review Request: python-zarr - An implementation of chunked, compressed, N-dimensional arrays for Python -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1687178] Review Request: python-apprise - Push Notifications that work with just about every platform!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687178
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags|needinfo- |fedora-review+
--- Comment #23 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- You could use sed instead of a patch to remove the shebang, it's a bbit
overkill for one line.
- %{__install} → install
Package is approved.
You still need to find a sponsor:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
(Yes I need to find time to finish the review I gave you)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat
License". 47 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-apprise/review-
python-apprise/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[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
[Bug 1674278] Review Request: tty-clock - clock using libncurses
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674278
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #25 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package is upproved.
You still need to find a sponsor:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/tty-clock/review-tty-
clock/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in tty-
clock
[?]: 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
[Bug 1607079] Review Request: ghc-wai-handler-launch - Launch a web app in the default browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607079 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ||needinfo?(petersen@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Reapproved, if you need to rerequest it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1535549] Review Request: mupen64plus - Nintendo 64 Emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535549 --- Comment #14 from Robert-André Mauchin --- (In reply to Wade Berrier from comment #13) > I guess I need a sponsor? > > My pagure.io requests were closed. Yes you need a sponsor: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1638824] Review Request: kdsoap - Qt-based SOAP library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1638824 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689486] Review Request: python-numcodecs - Buffer compression and transformation for data storage and communication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689486 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Ok 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1562526] Review Request: libfullock - A Fast User Level LOCK (FULLOCK) library for C and C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1562526 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689486] Review Request: python-numcodecs - Buffer compression and transformation for data storage and communication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689486 --- Comment #3 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- Fixed. No need for double-building; %check is run after %install. Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/python-numcodecs.spec SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/python-numcodecs-0.6.3-2.fc29.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1685200] Review Request: build2 - Cross-platform build toolchain for developing and packaging C++ code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1685200 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689483] Review Request: python-sphinx-issues - Sphinx extension for linking to your project's issue tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689483 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sphinx-issues -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689542] Review Request: rubygem-tomlrb - TOML parser based on racc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689542 --- Comment #10 from Fabio Valentini --- Okay, thanks! dist-git requests: rawhide: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10526 f30: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10527 f29: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10528 f28: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10529 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1663668] Review Request: python-k2hr3-osnl - K2hR3 OpenStack Notification Listener
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663668 --- Comment #3 from Hirotaka Wakabayashi --- Hello, Robert and Zbigniew I am very sorry for my late reply. I will update the stuff soon. Thanks in advance, Hirotaka Wakabayashi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689164] Review Request: python-geomet - GeoJSON <-> WKT/WKB conversion utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689164 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-geomet -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1688565] Review Request: R-ggplot2 - Create Elegant Data Visualisations Using the Grammar of Graphics
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1688565 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/R-ggplot2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1690050] Review Request: cutter-re - GUI for radare2 reverse engineering framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690050
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- 1.8 was released 2 hours ago, please bump
- Please link to upstream bug report or merge request for your patches
- Add these license to the license field and add a comment explaining the
license breakdown:
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Public License (v3.0)
-
cutter-1.7.4/src/img/icons/Iconic-LICENSE
Creative Commons CC0 Public License (v1.547.543243264.32)
-
cutter-1.7.4/src/fonts/Anonymous Pro.ttf
- Please Requires: hicolor-icon-theme to own the icons directories.
- Appdata files must now be installed in %{_metainfodir}, /usr/share/appdata
is obsolete.
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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Creative Commons
Attribution Public License (v3.0)", "*No copyright* GNU General Public
License (v3.0)", "Creative Commons CC0 Public License
(v1.547.543243264.32)", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License
(v3)", "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Public License
(v3.0)". 449 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/cutter-re/review-cutter-
re/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: 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 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: 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]:
[Bug 1688565] Review Request: R-ggplot2 - Create Elegant Data Visualisations Using the Grammar of Graphics
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1688565 --- Comment #3 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2) > Thanks for doing plenty of review for me! Ah, I'm sure you've done way more reviews for me so far! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1690046] Review Request: Charliecloud - unprivileged container runtime
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690046 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- You'll also need to find a sponsor to get into the Packager group. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers?rd=PackageMaintainers/Join and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1690027] Review Request: spausedd - Utility to detect and log scheduler pause
clude it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in spausedd
[?]: 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.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
---
Checking: spausedd-20190318-2.fc31.x86_64.rpm
spausedd-debuginfo-20190318-2.fc31.x86_64.rpm
spausedd-debugsource-20190318-2.fc31.x86_64.rpm
spausedd-20190318-2.fc31.src.rpm
spausedd.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 20190321-2
['20190318-2.fc31', '20190318-2']
spausedd.x86_64: W: empty-%postun
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689542] Review Request: rubygem-tomlrb - TOML parser based on racc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689542 --- Comment #9 from Robert-André Mauchin --- It's a check for this: Each Ruby package MUST indicate it depends on a Ruby interpreter (this does not apply to RubyGems). Use ruby(release) virtual requirement to achieve that: Requires: ruby(release) https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Ruby/#_ruby_compatibility It doesn't not apply to rubygems package so no worry. I haven't seen a non-rubygems Ruby package yet though. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1690051] @design-suite group contains conflicting packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690051 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ke...@scrye.com, ||vpav...@redhat.com, ||zebo...@gmail.com Component|Package Review |comps Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sgall...@redhat.com QA Contact|extras...@fedoraproject.org | --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Thanks you for your report. The Package Review component is for reviewing new packages to be included in Fedora, I'm reassigning it to "comps" which take care of Package groups See also: https://pagure.io/fedora-comps -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689542] Review Request: rubygem-tomlrb - TOML parser based on racc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689542 --- Comment #8 from Fabio Valentini --- Thanks for the review! What's the issue "Package contains Requires: ruby(release)." about? That's only in the BuildRequires, where it was automatically added by gem2rpm. It's not present in the built package's Requires. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1690046] Review Request: Charliecloud - unprivileged container runtime
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690046 Dave Love changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dave.l...@manchester.ac.uk Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|dave.l...@manchester.ac.uk -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689542] Review Request: rubygem-tomlrb - TOML parser based on racc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689542
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 #7 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Tests run fine.
Parser sources regenerated. Parser grammar removed.
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package contains Requires: ruby(release).
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/rubygem-
tomlrb/review-rubygem-tomlrb/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Pure Ruby package must be built as noarch
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rubygem-
tomlrb
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does
[Bug 1689542] Review Request: rubygem-tomlrb - TOML parser based on racc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689542 --- Comment #6 from Fabio Valentini --- - Regenerated the parser from the grammar - Included and enabled the test suite - Removed the grammar file from the installed files Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rubygem-tomlrb.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rubygem-tomlrb-1.2.8-2.fc29.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1663668] Review Request: python-k2hr3-osnl - K2hR3 OpenStack Notification Listener
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663668 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689865] Review Request: python-pysol-cards - python 2/3 API for dealing layouts of PySol FC/old PySol/Freecell Pro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689865 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - We're not supposed to accept new Python 2 packages. Either get an exception, or make it conditional for EPEL 6/7 only. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689523] Review Request: rust-tokio-trace-core - Core primitives for tokio-trace
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689523 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689397] Review Request: trellis - Lattice ECP5 FPGA bitstream creation/analysis/programming tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689397
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- %{__rm}, %{__mv}, %{__sed}, %{__mkdir}, %{__install} → rm, mv, sed, mkdir,
install -p
(Note the -p here to keep timestamps)
- Why do you package a dev snapshot while the release is so recent?
- Not sure what system you're during but all Python packages now must start
with either python2 of python3:
Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:42 ago on Mon Mar 18 20:18:35 2019.
No matching package to install: 'python-recommonmark'
# for building docs:
BuildRequires: python3-sphinx-latex
BuildRequires: python3-recommonmark
- [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 59760640 bytes in /usr/share
trellis-1.0-0.1.20190315git26d6667.fc31.x86_64.rpm:59648000
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines
Could you make anoarch -data subpackage for %{_datadir}/%{name}?
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.
[-]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Note: See rpmlint output
[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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
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", "ISC License", "Expat License". 711
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/trellis/review-trellis/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[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 798720 bytes in 87 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 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]:
[Bug 1689542] Review Request: rubygem-tomlrb - TOML parser based on racc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689542 --- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini --- > That is nothing exceptional. Guidelines mention this situation. Right. I'll work on it. I'll have the next version ready later today or tomorrow. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1684612] Review Request: f30-backgrounds - Fedora 30 default desktop background
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684612 --- Comment #21 from Adam Williamson --- Source1 in this package - metadata.desktop , which is the KDE desktop configuration - was copied from the F29 package and not updated, it's stuffed with F29s: [Desktop Entry] Name=Fedora Twenty Nine Comment=Fedora Plasma theme X-KDE-PluginInfo-Author=Fedora KDE-SIG X-KDE-PluginInfo-Email=k...@lists.fedoraproject.org X-KDE-PluginInfo-Name=F29 X-KDE-PluginInfo-Version=29.0 ... [Wallpaper] defaultWallpaperTheme=F29 please pay more attention to this next time. I will send an update that fixes this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1665541] Review Request: python-resumable-urlretrieve - This is a drop-in replacement for urllib.request.urlretrieve
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665541 --- Comment #8 from Luis Bazan --- The BR its ready in rawhide. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-7cfad91e80 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-6564f9694c Cheers, -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1665563] Review Request: python-rangehttpserver - SimpleHTTPServer with support for Range requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665563 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- python-rangehttpserver-1.2.0-9.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-6564f9694c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689494] Review Request: python-xarray - N-D labeled arrays and datasets in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689494
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: "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated",
"*No copyright* Apache License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "*No copyright*
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Public License (v3.0)". 176
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-xarray/review-python-
xarray/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s)
[Bug 1665563] Review Request: python-rangehttpserver - SimpleHTTPServer with support for Range requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665563 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- python-rangehttpserver-1.2.0-5.fc30 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-7cfad91e80 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689654] Review Request: perl-MooX-Role-Parameterized - Roles with composition parameters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689654 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-MooX-Role-Parameterized -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689493] Review Request: python-zarr - An implementation of chunked, compressed, N-dimensional arrays for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689493
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- It works fine using
%check
py.test-%{python3_version}
instead.
Please fix the SPEC according all my aforementioned remarks.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "Creative Commons CC0
Public License". 7459 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-zarr/review-python-
zarr/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires:
[Bug 1688555] Review Request: python-capturer - Easily capture stdout/stderr of the current process and subprocesses
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1688555 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-capturer -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1688563] Review Request: python-verboselogs - Verbose logging level for Python's logging module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1688563 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-verboselogs -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689493] Review Request: python-zarr - An implementation of chunked, compressed, N-dimensional arrays for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689493 --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Ha you need to BR msgpack first: BuildRequires: python3dist(msgpack) - But now the tests segfaults later: BUILDSTDERR: Ran 1303 tests in 30.335s BUILDSTDERR: OK BUILDSTDERR: /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.XDkdPI: line 31: 388 Segmentation fault (core dumped) /usr/bin/python3 setup.py test BUILDSTDERR: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.XDkdPI (%check) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689486] Review Request: python-numcodecs - Buffer compression and transformation for data storage and communication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689486
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Ok I think you should fix the SPEC like this with an additionnal build command:
%build
CFLAGS="${CFLAGS:-${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}}" LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS:-${RPM_LD_FLAGS}}"
%{__python3} %{py_setup} %{?py_setup_args} build_ext --inplace
%py3_build
# generate html docs
PYTHONPATH=${PWD} sphinx-build-3 docs html
# remove the sphinx-build leftovers
rm -rf html/.{doctrees,buildinfo}
%install
%py3_install
%check
PYTHONPATH=${PWD} py.test-%{python3_version}
No need for the additional %{__python3} setup.py test like before.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1684934] Review Request: golang-github-roaringbitmap-roaring - Go version of the Roaring bitmap data structure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684934 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-roaringbitmap-roaring-0.4.17-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-2019-6b7de04ec9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1677989] Review Request: vcglib Visualization and Computer Graphics Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677989
--- Comment #19 from Petr Menšík ---
Almost there. License tag is wrong, most headers have GPLv2 or later, while
some files have no license tags. Since there is conflict between main license
file and file headers, both must be declared in License tag.
License: GPLv2+ and GPLv3+
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: sed
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later)
GNU Lesser General Public License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "GPL (v3 or later) GNU Lesser General Public License (v3 or
later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "Boehm
GC License Mozilla Public License (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Mozilla
Public License (v2.0)", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License",
"BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "GPL (v2 or later) (with
incorrect FSF address)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1)",
"Mozilla Public License (v2.0)", "GNU Lesser General Public License
(modified-code-notice clause) GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1
or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)". 455 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/reviewer/fedora/rawhide
/review-vcglib/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[Bug 1663633] Review Request: clojure-maven-plugin - maven plugin to build Clojure programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663633 --- Comment #5 from Markku Korkeala --- No worries, thank you for the review :) I'll continue searching for a sponsor. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689493] Review Request: python-zarr - An implementation of chunked, compressed, N-dimensional arrays for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689493
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Source0:
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/z/%{srcname}/%{srcname}-%{version}.tar.gz
→
Source0:%{pypi_source}
+ PYTHONPATH=/builddir/build/BUILD/zarr-2.2.0
+ sphinx-build-3 docs html
Running Sphinx v2.0.0b1
BUILDSTDERR: Extension error:
BUILDSTDERR: Could not import extension numpydoc (exception: No module named
'numpydoc')
Add:
BuildRequires: python3dist(numpydoc)
- You need to BR pytest for the tests:
BuildRequires: python3dist(pytest)
- Tests error:
BUILDSTDERR: test_core (unittest.loader._FailedTest) ... ERROR
BUILDSTDERR: zarr.tests.test_core (unittest.loader._FailedTest) ... ERROR
BUILDSTDERR: zarr.tests.test_sync (unittest.loader._FailedTest) ... ERROR
BUILDSTDERR:
==
BUILDSTDERR: ERROR: test_sync (unittest.loader._FailedTest)
BUILDSTDERR:
--
BUILDSTDERR: ImportError: Failed to import test module: test_sync
BUILDSTDERR: Traceback (most recent call last):
BUILDSTDERR: File "/usr/lib64/python3.7/unittest/loader.py", line 154, in
loadTestsFromName
BUILDSTDERR: module = __import__(module_name)
BUILDSTDERR: File "/builddir/build/BUILD/zarr-2.2.0/zarr/tests/test_sync.py",
line 17, in
BUILDSTDERR: from zarr.tests.test_core import TestArray
BUILDSTDERR: File "/builddir/build/BUILD/zarr-2.2.0/zarr/tests/test_core.py",
line 24, in
BUILDSTDERR: from numcodecs import (Delta, FixedScaleOffset, Zlib, Blosc,
BZ2, MsgPack, Pickle,
BUILDSTDERR: ImportError: cannot import name 'MsgPack' from 'numcodecs'
(/usr/lib64/python3.7/site-packages/numcodecs/__init__.py)
BUILDSTDERR:
==
BUILDSTDERR: ERROR: test_core (unittest.loader._FailedTest)
BUILDSTDERR:
--
BUILDSTDERR: ImportError: Failed to import test module: test_core
BUILDSTDERR: Traceback (most recent call last):
BUILDSTDERR: File "/usr/lib64/python3.7/unittest/loader.py", line 154, in
loadTestsFromName
BUILDSTDERR: module = __import__(module_name)
BUILDSTDERR: File "/builddir/build/BUILD/zarr-2.2.0/zarr/tests/test_core.py",
line 24, in
BUILDSTDERR: from numcodecs import (Delta, FixedScaleOffset, Zlib, Blosc,
BZ2, MsgPack, Pickle,
BUILDSTDERR: ImportError: cannot import name 'MsgPack' from 'numcodecs'
(/usr/lib64/python3.7/site-packages/numcodecs/__init__.py)
BUILDSTDERR:
==
BUILDSTDERR: ERROR: zarr.tests.test_core (unittest.loader._FailedTest)
BUILDSTDERR:
--
BUILDSTDERR: ImportError: Failed to import test module: zarr.tests.test_core
BUILDSTDERR: Traceback (most recent call last):
BUILDSTDERR: File "/usr/lib64/python3.7/unittest/loader.py", line 434, in
_find_test_path
BUILDSTDERR: module = self._get_module_from_name(name)
BUILDSTDERR: File "/usr/lib64/python3.7/unittest/loader.py", line 375, in
_get_module_from_name
BUILDSTDERR: __import__(name)
BUILDSTDERR: File "/builddir/build/BUILD/zarr-2.2.0/zarr/tests/test_core.py",
line 24, in
BUILDSTDERR: from numcodecs import (Delta, FixedScaleOffset, Zlib, Blosc,
BZ2, MsgPack, Pickle,
BUILDSTDERR: ImportError: cannot import name 'MsgPack' from 'numcodecs'
(/usr/lib64/python3.7/site-packages/numcodecs/__init__.py)
BUILDSTDERR:
==
BUILDSTDERR: ERROR: zarr.tests.test_sync (unittest.loader._FailedTest)
BUILDSTDERR:
--
BUILDSTDERR: ImportError: Failed to import test module: zarr.tests.test_sync
BUILDSTDERR: Traceback (most recent call last):
BUILDSTDERR: File "/usr/lib64/python3.7/unittest/loader.py", line 434, in
_find_test_path
BUILDSTDERR: module = self._get_module_from_name(name)
BUILDSTDERR: File "/usr/lib64/python3.7/unittest/loader.py", line 375, in
_get_module_from_name
BUILDSTDERR: __import__(name)
BUILDSTDERR: File "/builddir/build/BUILD/zarr-2.2.0/zarr/tests/test_sync.py",
line 17, in
BUILDSTDERR: from zarr.tests.test_core import TestArray
BUILDSTDERR: File "/builddir/build/BUILD/zarr-2.2.0/zarr/tests/test_core.py",
line 24, in
BUILDSTDERR: from numcodecs import (Delta, FixedScaleOffset, Zlib, Blosc,
BZ2, MsgPack, Pickle,
BUILDSTDERR: ImportError: cannot import name 'MsgPack' from 'numcodecs'
(/usr/lib64/python3.7/site-packages/numcodecs/__init__.py)
BUILDSTDERR:
--
BUILDSTDERR: Ran 552 tests in 1.233s
BUILDSTDERR: FAILED (errors=4)
BUILDSTDERR: Test failed:
I wonder if something is not effed up in numcodecs install.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
[Bug 1689486] Review Request: python-numcodecs - Buffer compression and transformation for data storage and communication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689486
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Source0:
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/n/%{srcname}/%{srcname}-%{version}.tar.gz
→
Source0:%{pypi_source}
- You need to BR pytest for the tests:
BuildRequires: python3dist(pytest)
- Run proper tests:
%check
%{__python3} setup.py test
PYTHONPATH=${PWD} py.test-%{python3_version}
(Both commands are needed, first one builds the C code, second runs the actual
tests).
- The -doc subpackage should be noarch.
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.
[-]: 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* BSD
(unspecified)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "BSD
2-clause "Simplified" License", "zlib/libpng license". 1408 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-numcodecs/review-python-
numcodecs/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[+]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: 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
[Bug 1689493] Review Request: python-zarr - An implementation of chunked, compressed, N-dimensional arrays for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689493 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|zebo...@gmail.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review? | --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Messed up two reviews. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1658153] Review Request: wdune - wdune (white_dune) is a graphical VRML97/X3D editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1658153 --- Comment #54 from J. Scheurich --- > Recommends would work just fine. > But I proposed that as generic pattern. I am sure Fedora has more terminals > and more bitmap editors available. It could reuse similar approach. But that > would be just nice to have feature. wdune already uses Recommends: for bitmap editor, sound editor and terminal. Unfortunalty, there is no movie editor in Fedora... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689493] Review Request: python-zarr - An implementation of chunked, compressed, N-dimensional arrays for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689493
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Source0:
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/z/%{srcname}/%{srcname}-%{version}.tar.gz
→
Source0:%{pypi_source}
- You need to BR pytest for the tests:
BuildRequires: python3dist(pytest)
- Run proper tests:
%check
%{__python3} setup.py test
PYTHONPATH=${PWD} py.test-%{python3_version}
(Both commands are needed, first one builds the C code, second runs the actual
tests).
- The -doc subpackage should be noarch.
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.
[-]: 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* BSD
(unspecified)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "BSD
2-clause "Simplified" License", "zlib/libpng license". 1408 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-numcodecs/review-python-
numcodecs/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[+]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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]: 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
[Bug 1690051] New: @design-suite group contains conflicting packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690051 Bug ID: 1690051 Summary: @design-suite group contains conflicting packages Product: Fedora Version: 29 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: low Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: aran...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: The package group @design-suite cannot be installed because mypaint and gimp have conflicts. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): - package libmypaint-1.3.0-9.fc29.x86_64 conflicts with mypaint < 1.3.0 provided by mypaint-1.2.1-19.fc29.i686 - package libmypaint-1.3.0-9.fc29.x86_64 conflicts with mypaint < 1.3.0 provided by mypaint-1.2.1-19.fc29.x86_64 - package gimp-2:2.10.8-5.fc29.x86_64 requires libmypaint-1.3.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed - package gimp-2:2.10.6-2.fc29.x86_64 requires libmypaint-1.3.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed How reproducible: Every time Steps to Reproduce: 1. dnf install @design-suite Actual results: Error: Problem 1: conflicting requests - nothing provides blender(ABI) = 2.79 needed by LuxRender-blender-1.6-26.fc28.noarch Problem 2: conflicting requests - package libmypaint-1.3.0-9.fc29.x86_64 conflicts with mypaint < 1.3.0 provided by mypaint-1.2.1-19.fc29.i686 - package libmypaint-1.3.0-9.fc29.x86_64 conflicts with mypaint < 1.3.0 provided by mypaint-1.2.1-19.fc29.x86_64 - package gimp-2:2.10.8-5.fc29.x86_64 requires libmypaint-1.3.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed - package gimp-2:2.10.6-2.fc29.x86_64 requires libmypaint-1.3.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed (try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting packages or '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages) Expected results: design suite packages would be installed. Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1658153] Review Request: wdune - wdune (white_dune) is a graphical VRML97/X3D editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1658153 --- Comment #53 from J. Scheurich --- > It might be nice to have already compiled examples from code provided > however. For example in examples subpackage. If they are small and do not > have additional dependencies, they might be part of wdune itself. Just with > some prefix, like wdune-opengl-example. They have additional dependencies. Either (free)glut for C++ examples or java/jogl for java examples. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1690050] New: Review Request: cutter-re - GUI for radare2 reverse engineering framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690050 Bug ID: 1690050 Summary: Review Request: cutter-re - GUI for radare2 reverse engineering framework Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: lkund...@v3.sk QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/cutter-re.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/cutter-re-1.7.4-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: Cutter is a Qt and C++ GUI for radare2. Its goal is making an advanced, customizable and FOSS reverse-engineering platform while keeping the user experience at mind. Cutter is created by reverse engineers for reverse engineers. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689251] Review Request: swayidle - idle daemon for wayland compositors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689251
Till Hofmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Till Hofmann ---
APPROVED
Please fix the License tag before importing. Not sure if upstream intended the
dual licensing, you may want to ask them about it.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- License should be "MIT and LGPLv2+"
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "Expat
License", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: 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 uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
swayidle-debuginfo , swayidle-debugsource
[?]: 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 1690046] Review Request: Charliecloud - unprivileged container runtime
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690046 jo...@lanl.gov changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |Charliecloud -unprivileged |Charliecloud - unprivileged |container runtime |container runtime -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1690046] Review Request: Charliecloud -unprivileged container runtime
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690046 jo...@lanl.gov changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: -|container runtime -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1690046] New: Review Request: -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1690046 Bug ID: 1690046 Summary: Review Request: - Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jo...@lanl.gov QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jogas/charliecloud/epel-7-x86_64/00868926-charliecloud/charliecloud.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jogas/charliecloud/epel-7-x86_64/00868926-charliecloud/charliecloud-0.9.8-1.el7.src.rpm Description: Greetings, I am opening this review request with hopes of getting this package into Fedora Extras. Charliecloud is a 2018 R award winning container runtime. It leverages Linux user namespaces to run containers with no privileged operations, no setuid helpers, no daemons, and minimal (if any) configuration changes on center resources. Container images can be built using Docker or anything else that can generate a standard Linux filesystem tree. Fedora Account System Username: Jogas rpmlint for charliecloud.spec: $ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/charliecloud.spec /home/jogas/rpmbuild/SPECS/charliecloud.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/hpc/charliecloud/releases/download/v0.9.8/charliecloud-0.9.8.tar.gz HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. The source URL points to an asset tarball with pre-built man pages. You can download it just fine with `wget`, but the `HEAD` request that rpmlint sends github is met with a 403 forbidden error. See: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpmlint/issues/71 rpmlint log for charliecloud package: $ rpmlint charliecloud 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint log for charliecloud-doc subpackage: $ rpmlint charliecloud-doc charliecloud-doc.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/libexec/charliecloud/test/sotest/lib/libsotest.so.1.0 charliecloud-doc.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/libexec/charliecloud/examples/mpi/mpihello/hello.c charliecloud-doc.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/libexec/charliecloud/test/sotest/lib/libsotest.so.1.0 charliecloud-doc.x86_64: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/libexec/charliecloud/test/sotest/lib/libsotest.so.1.0 charliecloud-doc.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/libexec/charliecloud/test/chtest/chroot-escape.c charliecloud-doc.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/libexec/charliecloud/test/bin ../../../bin charliecloud-doc.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/libexec/charliecloud/test/sotest/sotest.c charliecloud-doc.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/libexec/charliecloud/test/chtest/setgroups.c charliecloud-doc.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/libexec/charliecloud/examples/syscalls/userns.c charliecloud-doc.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/libexec/charliecloud/test/chtest/mknods.c charliecloud-doc.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/libexec/charliecloud/examples/syscalls/pivot_root.c charliecloud-doc.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/libexec/charliecloud/test/chtest/setuid.c 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 9 warnings. charliecloud-doc rpmlint comments: 1. E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/libexec/charliecloud/test/sotest/lib/libsotest.so.1.0 Charliecloud is a container runtime. These shared objects are never used in the host environment; rather, they are compiled by the test suite (both running and examination of which serve as end-user documentation) and injected into the container (guest) via utility script 'ch-fromhost'. The ldconfig links are generated inside the container runtime environment. For more information, see the test file: https://github.com/hpc/charliecloud/blob/master/test/run/ch-fromhost.bats (line 108). 2. W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/libexec/charliecloud/examples/mpi/mpihello/hello.c The test suite has a few C files, e.g. userns.c, pivot_root.c, chroot-escape.c, sotest.c, setgroups.c, mknods.c, setuid.c, .etc, that document — line-by-line in many cases — various components of the open source runtime. These C files are part of our documentation to show end users how containers work. 3. E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/libexec/charliecloud/test/sotest/lib/libsotest.so.1.0 See response to #1. 4.: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/libexec/charliecloud/test/sotest/lib/libsotest.so.1.0 See response to #1. 5. devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/libexec/charliecloud/test/chtest/chroot-escape.c See response to #2. 6. dangling-relative-symlink /usr/libexec/charliecloud/test/bin ../../../bin This is a false positive. The symlink is to /usr/bin,
[Bug 1658153] Review Request: wdune - wdune (white_dune) is a graphical VRML97/X3D editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1658153
--- Comment #52 from Petr Menšík ---
Thank you for pkg-config usage. It uses less flags but they are more accurate.
1)
Since doc subpackage does not contain license, it must depend on the same
version of main package. No package can be installed without license.
2)
If you wanted to use extraver in %setup, use something like %setup -q -n
"wdune-%{upstream_version}"
3)
(In reply to J. Scheurich from comment #47)
> (In reply to Petr Menšík from comment #44)
>
> It looks like rezound, wavesurfer, gnusound and soundeditor are not part of
> fedora 30
>
> # dnf install rezound wavesurfer gnusound sweep soundeditor
> Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:32 ago on Sat 09 Mar 2019 01:25:39 AM
> CET.
> No match for argument: rezound
> No match for argument: wavesurfer
> No match for argument: gnusound
> No match for argument: soundeditor
> Error: Unable to find a match
> #
Ok, did not check them. If we have only one similar editor in Fedora, there is
no point making wrappers around it. Recommends would work just fine.
But I proposed that as generic pattern. I am sure Fedora has more terminals and
more bitmap editors available. It could reuse similar approach. But that would
be just nice to have feature.
4)
If there is no change in docs dependent on architecture, they should be marked
as noarch.
%package docs
BuildArch: noarch
...
It might be nice to have already compiled examples from code provided however.
For example in examples subpackage. If they are small and do not have
additional dependencies, they might be part of wdune itself. Just with some
prefix, like wdune-opengl-example.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1689483] Review Request: python-sphinx-issues - Sphinx extension for linking to your project's issue tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689483
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 ---
Source0:
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/s/%{srcname}/%{srcname}-%{version}.tar.gz
→
Source0:%{pypi_source}
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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-sphinx-issues/review-python-sphinx-
issues/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: 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 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]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[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
