[Bug 1823599] Review Request: gjots2 - A heirarchical note jotter. Organise your ideas, notes, facts in a tree
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823599 --- Comment #1 from Bob Hepple --- Fixed some obvious errors: SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gjots2/fedora-31-x86_64/01337305-gjots2/gjots2.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gjots2/fedora-31-x86_64/01337305-gjots2/gjots2-3.1.2-2.fc31.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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823599] New: Review Request: gjots2 - A heirarchical note jotter. Organise your ideas, notes, facts in a tree
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823599
Bug ID: 1823599
Summary: Review Request: gjots2 - A heirarchical note jotter.
Organise your ideas, notes, facts in a tree
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
Reporter: bob.hep...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gjots2/fedora-31-x86_64/01299215-gjots2/gjots2.spec
SRPM URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/gjots2/fedora-31-x86_64/01299215-gjots2/gjots2-3.1.2-1.wef.src.rpm
Description:
gjots2 ("gee-jots" or, if you prefer, "gyachts"!) is a way to marshall
and organise your text notes in a convenient, hierarchical way. For
example, use it for all your notes on Unix, personal bits and pieces,
recipes and even PINs and passwords (encrypted with ccrypt(1), gpg(1)
or openssl(1)).
You can also use it to "mind-map" your compositions - write down all
your thoughts and then start to organise them into a tree. By
manipulating the tree you can easily reorder your thoughts and
structure them appropriately.
Fedora Account System Username: wef
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1812411] Review request: bookworm - simple, focused eBook reader
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812411 --- Comment #15 from Bob Hepple --- New build from current master - pre-release of 1.1.3 - fixes python2 problem SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/bookworm/fedora-31-x86_64/01337284-bookworm/bookworm.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/bookworm/fedora-31-x86_64/01337284-bookworm/bookworm-1.1.3-0.1.20200414git.c7c3643.fc31.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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1773720] Review Request: golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi - HAProxy Data Plane API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773720
Brandon Perkins changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(bperkins@redhat.c |
|om) |
--- Comment #10 from Brandon Perkins ---
(In reply to Ryan O'Hara from comment #9)
>
> [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
>
> - The license is definitely installed with the regular rpm and/or the -devel
> package. Does this requirement also apply to debuginfo and debugsource
> packages? I'm going to assume not.
>
So, this is a great question that, AFAICT has not been resolved:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/V3JDB74XPJQVNWO7SJVVDYFP3AR6GQD4/
and I don't get clarity from:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing
or
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Debuginfo/
I would say that we defer to the auto-generation done by the macros which
appears to not include it.
> [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/logrotate.d
>
> - I don't think this is optional. Having the "suggests" line is the spec
> seems ok, but this package is creating a directory with no owner.
>
The /etc/logrotate.d directory is owned by the 'logrotate' package:
$ rpm -qf /etc/logrotate.d
logrotate-3.15.1-1.fc31.x86_64
This issue is properly satisfied by the logrotate 'Suggests' in the RPM:
$ grep ^Suggests: SPECS/golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi.spec
Suggests: logrotate
$ rpm -qp --suggests
RPMS/golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi-1.2.4-5.fc31.x86_64.rpm
logrotate
To me, it's better to have a possible orphan directory than to have this
package become the owner of the directory. And, we certainly wouldn't be the
first to go down this path. Quick query shows me:
[bperkins@bperkins haproxytech]$ dnf repoquery --queryformat="%{NAME}"
--whatsuggests logrotate
mariadb-server
plymouth
However, many more do the ownership thing (which just seems wrong to me):
[bperkins@bperkins haproxytech]$ dnf repoquery --queryformat="%{NAME}"
--whatprovides /etc/logrotate.d
bes
copr-dist-git
gap-pkg-scscp
gerbera
kdm-settings
lightdm
logrotate
macromilter
openqa
ppp
psad
samba-common
sssd-common
yast2-filesystem
Or, we could go down what I *really* think is wrong and just ignore the issue
completely (which is by far the most popular path).
I'm personally inclined to do what I did, but I can certainly change it.
> [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
> Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
>
> - This seems like an issue with all Go modules, as mentioned above.
>
> [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
> Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in golang-
> github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi-devel
>
> - Can we do this? I know upstream is versioning the releases of the various
> dataplaneapi components. I'm not sure if this works for go packages.
>
Using the %gopkg macro, I don't see how this could be accomplished. This
really doesn't seem like a critical requirement to me.
>
> Rpmlint
> ---
> Checking: golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi-1.2.4-6.fc33.x86_64.rpm
>
> golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi-devel-1.2.4-6.fc33.noarch.rpm
>
> golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi-debuginfo-1.2.4-6.fc33.x86_64.rpm
>
> golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi-debugsource-1.2.4-6.fc33.x86_64.rpm
> golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi-1.2.4-6.fc33.src.rpm
> golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir
> /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/haproxytech/dataplaneapi/.goipath
> golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi-debugsource.x86_64: E:
> description-line-too-long C This package provides debug sources for package
> golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi.
> 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
>
>
>
>
> Rpmlint (debuginfo)
> ---
> Checking:
> golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi-debuginfo-1.2.4-6.fc33.x86_64.rpm
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
>
>
>
>
>
> Rpmlint (installed packages)
>
> perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
> perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
> LANGUAGE = (unset),
> LC_ALL = (unset),
> LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
> LANG = "en_US.UTF-8"
> are supported and installed on your system.
> perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
> perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
> perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
> LANGUAGE = (unset),
> LC_ALL = (unset),
> LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
> LANG = "en_US.UTF-8"
> are supported and
[Bug 1820846] Review Request: golang-github-nbutton23-zxcvbn - Zxcvbn password complexity algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820846 Germano Massullo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Germano Massullo --- Package approved This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/user/canc/golang-github-nbutton23-zxcvbn/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com(golang-github-ua-parser-uap-devel, golang-github-racker-perigee-devel, golang-github-facebookgo-stats- devel, golang-github-hashicorp-hclog-devel, compat-golang-github- coreos-etcd-devel, golang-github-burntsushi-xgb-devel, golang-github- stretchr-testify-devel, golang-github-rakyll-statik-devel, golang- github-containerd-fifo-devel, golang-github-pkg-profile-devel, golang- github-circonus-labs-circonusllhist-devel, golang-github- spacemonkeygo-openssl-devel, golang-github-mitchellh-cli-devel, golang-github-karlseguin-ccache-devel, golang-github-afex-hystrix- devel, golang-github-git-lfs-wildmatch-devel, golang-github- simonferquel-yaml-devel, golang-github-biogo-store-devel, golang- github-ghodss-yaml-devel, golang-github-karrick-godirwalk-devel, golang-github-klauspost-cpuid-devel, golang-github-seccomp-libseccomp- devel, golang-github-pkg-xattr-devel, golang-github-skynetservices- skydns-devel, golang-github-bmizerany-assert-devel, golang-github- eapache-xerial-snappy-devel, golang-github-zyedidia-poller-devel, golang-github-cryptix-wav-devel, golang-github-rkt-devel, golang- github-edsrzf-mmap-devel, golang-github-mdlayher-raw-devel, golang- github-sean-seed-devel, golang-github-hashicorp-memdb-devel, compat- golang-github-commonmark-linkify-devel, golang-github-neelance- sourcemap-devel, golang-github-hashicorp-gcp-common-devel, golang- github-aliyun-oss-sdk-devel, golang-github-cockroachdb-cockroach- devel, golang-github-grpc-ecosystem-prometheus-devel, golang-github- google-renameio-devel, golang-github-ryszard-goskiplist-devel, golang- github-jessevdk-assets-devel, golang-github-jackc-pgx-devel, golang- github-vdemeester-shakers-devel, golang-github-jackpal-gateway-devel, golang-github-fatih-set-devel, golang-github-dustin-humanize-devel, golang-github-shopspring-decimal-devel, golang-github-snappy-devel, golang-github-containerd-zfs-devel, golang-github-prometheus-procfs- devel, compat-golang-github-ldap-devel, golang-github-nlopes-slack- devel, golang-github-robertkrimen-otto-devel, golang-github-ghemawat- stream-devel, golang-github-emicklei-restful-devel, golang-github- nicksnyder-i18n-2-devel, golang-github-anacrolix-tagflag-devel, golang-github-daviddengcn-algs-devel, golang-github-sendgrid-rest- devel, golang-github-cosiner-argv-devel, golang-github-mattn-isatty- devel, golang-github-kardianos-osext-devel, golang-github-sendgrid- devel, golang-github-hashicorp-mdns-devel, golang-github-bradfitz- gomemcache-devel, golang-github-jimstudt-http-authentication-devel, golang-github-dnaeon-vcr-devel, golang-github-vividcortex-ewma-devel, golang-github-hashicorp-raft-boltdb-devel, golang-github-daaku-zipexe- devel, golang-github-subosito-gotenv-devel, golang-github-jwilder- encoding-devel, golang-github-zmap-zlint-devel, golang-github-
[Bug 1820846] Review Request: golang-github-nbutton23-zxcvbn - Zxcvbn password complexity algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820846 Germano Massullo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||germano.massu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|germano.massu...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1773719] Review Request: golang-github-haproxytech-client-native - Go client for HAProxy configuration and runtime API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773719 Ryan O'Hara changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Ryan O'Hara --- Thanks, Brandon! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1773718] Review Request: golang-github-haproxytech-config-parser - HAProxy configuration parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773718 Ryan O'Hara changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1773719] Review Request: golang-github-haproxytech-client-native - Go client for HAProxy configuration and runtime API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773719
--- Comment #9 from Brandon Perkins ---
(In reply to Ryan O'Hara from comment #7)
>
> Issues:
> ===
> - Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
> Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/golang-github-
> haproxytech-client-native-devel/README.md
> See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
> guidelines/#_duplicate_files
>
> - I don't quite understand this because the files aren't really listed in
> the spec file, but rather wee use %gopkgfiles. Also note that this did not
> happen with any of the other Go pacakges we are reviewing as part of the
> haproxy dataplaneapi. This is interesting, though:
>
> # rpm -q --filesbypkg
> golang-github-haproxytech-client-native-devel-1.2.6-2.fc33.noarch.rpm | grep
> README
> golang-github-haproxytech-client-native-devel
> /usr/share/doc/golang-github-haproxytech-client-native-devel/README.md
> golang-github-haproxytech-client-native-devel
> /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/haproxytech/client-native/README.md
> golang-github-haproxytech-client-native-devel
> /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/haproxytech/client-native/runtime/README.md
>
>
> # md5sum
> usr/share/doc/golang-github-haproxytech-client-native-devel/README.md
> usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/haproxytech/client-native/README
> usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/haproxytech/client-native/runtime/README.md
> 0a47f2b62cb73f6f84520d404d44f9e2
> usr/share/doc/golang-github-haproxytech-client-native-devel/README.md
> 0173e68acc6998d347f71ae13122390d
> usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/haproxytech/client-native/README.md
> 0a47f2b62cb73f6f84520d404d44f9e2
> usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/haproxytech/client-native/runtime/README.md
>
> So two of these files are identical, installed in different directories. If
> you look at github.com, you can see this README.md is duplicated in the git
> repo, too. Perhaps the easiest was to fix this is to ask upstream to remove
> one of the files?
>
Fixed with 1.2.6-3:
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[bperkins@bperkins haproxytech]$ rpm -ql
golang-github-haproxytech-client-native-devel | grep '/README.md$'
/usr/share/doc/golang-github-haproxytech-client-native-devel/README.md
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/haproxytech/client-native/README.md
[bperkins@bperkins haproxytech]$ rpm -ql
golang-github-haproxytech-client-native-devel | grep '/README.md$' | xargs -i
md5sum {}
0173e68acc6998d347f71ae13122390d
/usr/share/doc/golang-github-haproxytech-client-native-devel/README.md
0173e68acc6998d347f71ae13122390d
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/haproxytech/client-native/README.md
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1820852] Review Request: golang-github-antchfx-xpath - XPath package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820852 Germano Massullo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1820852] Review Request: golang-github-antchfx-xpath - XPath package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820852 --- Comment #3 from Germano Massullo --- Package approved This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/user/golang-github-antchfx-xpath/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com(golang-github-google-shlex-devel, golang-github-shurcool-sanitized-anchor-name-devel, golang-github- cockroachdb-returncheck-devel, golang-github-linuxkit-virtsock-devel, golang-github-bep-debounce-devel, golang-github-chmduquesne- rollinghash-devel, golang-github-paulbellamy-ratecounter-devel, golang-github-benbjohnson-immutable-devel, golang-github-rainycape- unidecode-devel, golang-github-gin-contrib-sse-devel, golang-github- gohugoio-hugo-devel, golang-github-karrick-godirwalk-devel, golang- github-aliyun-oss-sdk-devel, golang-github-git-lfs-ntlm-devel, golang- github-mindprince-gonvml-devel, golang-github-hashicorp-immutable- radix-devel, golang-github-matryer-try-devel, golang-github-sstarcher- okta-devel, golang-github-cheekybits-genny-devel, golang-github-blang- semver-devel, golang-github-devigned-tab-devel, golang-github- smartystreets-goconvey-devel, golang-github-hajimehoshi-oto-devel, golang-github-fernet-devel, compat-golang-github-bufio-devel, golang- github-spaolacci-murmur3-devel, golang-github-tomnomnom-assetfinder- devel, golang-github-hashicorp-hclog-devel, golang-github-mvo5-uboot- devel, golang-github-minio-devel, golang-github-armon-metrics-devel, golang-github-kr-text-devel, golang-github-c-bata-prompt-devel, golang-github-akrennmair-gopcap-devel, compat-golang-github-xorm- devel, golang-github-evanphx-json-patch-devel, golang-github- boombuler-barcode-devel, golang-github-openzipkin-zipkin-devel, golang-github-glycerine-unsnap-stream-devel, golang-github-syndtr- gocapability-devel, golang-github-goji-param-devel, golang-github- mbndr-figlet4go-devel, golang-github-rogpeppe-internal-devel, golang- github-masterminds-vcs-devel, golang-github-samalba-dockerclient- devel, golang-github-rcrowley-metrics-devel, golang-github-mistifyio- zfs-devel, golang-github-kisielk-sqlstruct-devel, golang-github- hashicorp-sockaddr-devel, golang-github-gocql-devel, golang-github- cyphar-filepath-securejoin-devel, golang-github-grpc-ecosystem- gateway-devel, golang-github-dlclark-regexp2-devel, compat-golang- github-ldap-devel, golang-github-alexflint-filemutex-devel, golang- github-baiyubin-aliyun-sts-sdk-devel, golang-github-facebookgo- pidfile-devel, golang-github-git-lfs-gitobj-devel, golang-github- docker-distribution-devel, golang-github-jawher-mow-cli-devel, golang- github-jefferai-jsonx-devel, golang-github-seandolphin-bqschema-devel, golang-github-tv42-httpunix-devel, golang-github-gddo-devel, golang- github-oklog-run-devel, golang-github-openapi-jsonreference-devel, golang-github-shopify-toxiproxy-devel, golang-github-abourget- teamcity-devel, golang-github-muesli-smartcrop-devel, golang-github-k- sone-critbitgo-devel, golang-github-rkt-devel, golang-github- cockroachdb-ttycolor-devel, golang-github-stathat-devel, golang- github-microsoft-opengcs-devel, golang-github-10gen-escaper-devel, golang-github-marten-seemann-qpack-devel, golang-github-spf13-fsync- devel, golang-github-azure-amqp-devel, golang-github-elazarl-bindata- assetfs-devel, golang-github-h2non-parth-devel, golang-github-miekg- mmark-devel,
[Bug 1773719] Review Request: golang-github-haproxytech-client-native - Go client for HAProxy configuration and runtime API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773719 --- Comment #8 from Brandon Perkins --- Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/bdperkin/haproxytech/master/SPECS/golang-github-haproxytech-client-native.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bdperkin/haproxytech/fedora-31-x86_64/01337234-golang-github-haproxytech-client-native/golang-github-haproxytech-client-native-1.2.6-3.fc31.src.rpm Successful copr build: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/bdperkin/haproxytech/fedora-31-x86_64/01337234-golang-github-haproxytech-client-native/ Changelog: * Mon Apr 13 2020 Brandon Perkins - 1.2.6-3 - Remove runtime/README.md * Mon Mar 02 2020 Brandon Perkins - 1.2.6-2 - Clean changelog * Wed Nov 13 2019 Brandon Perkins - 1.2.6-1 - Initial package -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823001] Review Request: simde - SIMD Everywhere
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7e49dc4aad has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-7e49dc4aad \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7e49dc4aad See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1820799] Review Request: golang-github-evilsocket-islazy - Go library containing a set of opinionated packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820799 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-5d07e48bd8 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-5d07e48bd8 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5d07e48bd8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823091] Review Request: python-freeipa - Lightweight FreeIPA client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823091 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-81f9f75f04 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-81f9f75f04 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-81f9f75f04 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1822191] Review Request: golang-gitlab-flimzy-testy - Go testing utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822191 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1801758 ||(golang-github-otiai10-copy ||) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801758 [Bug 1801758] Review Request: golang-github-otiai10-copy - Golang copy directory recursively -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1822187] Review Request: golang-github-otiai10-copy - Copy directory recursively
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822187 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Last Closed||2020-04-13 20:53:33 --- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1801758 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1822191] Review Request: golang-gitlab-flimzy-testy - Go testing utilities
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822191 Bug 1822191 depends on bug 1822187, which changed state. Bug 1822187 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-otiai10-copy - Copy directory recursively https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822187 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1801758] Review Request: golang-github-otiai10-copy - Golang copy directory recursively
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801758 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1822191 CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch --- Comment #13 from Fabian Affolter --- *** Bug 1822187 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822191 [Bug 1822191] Review Request: golang-gitlab-flimzy-testy - Go testing utilities -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1805928] Review Request: elementary-planner - Task manager with Todoist support designed for GNU/Linux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805928 --- Comment #12 from Fabio Valentini --- (In reply to Artem from comment #11) > (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #3) > > Why are you arbitrarily inventing an "elementary-" prefix for the package > > name? > > Because there is already exist 'planner' package > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/planner > Also there is no any special Elementary guidelines in Fedora and how > elementary packages MUST named. Uh ... that's my point, it's *not* an elementary project. It's a third-party project, that doesn't have "elementary" anywhere in its name. I know that "planner" is a really generic name that's likely to lead to name clashes (as it does in this case), but that doesn't mean you can just "invent" a name prefix. > > And why are you arbitrarily building this with -flto? > > Why you not ask why arbitrarily mozjs [1] and firefox built with -flto and > why LTO by default proposed in F32 [2]? > > > Packages should be built with fedora default build flags ... > > This package built with default fedora build flags. Additional build flags > not prohibited, i asked this many times other maintainers. Fair enough, but the packaging Guidelines still specify that you should document *why* you're modifying build flags. The Change about enabling LTO by default also has no bearing on this, because it would change the *default* build flags, and thereby *by definiton* moving the goalpost for everybody. > [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mozjs68/blob/master/f/mozjs68.spec#_3 > [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LTOByDefault -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1790091] Review Request: androwarn - Static code analyzer for malicious Android applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1790091 --- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/androwarn -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1790091] Review Request: androwarn - Static code analyzer for malicious Android applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1790091 --- Comment #7 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823117] Review Request: opensurge - 2D retro platformer inspired by Sonic games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823117 --- Comment #9 from Artur Iwicki --- SurgeScript got accepted as a separate package, so here's a koji scratch build. spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/opensurge-0.5.1.2-4/opensurge.spec srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/opensurge-0.5.1.2-4/opensurge-0.5.1.2-4.fc32.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43349730 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823117] Review Request: opensurge - 2D retro platformer inspired by Sonic games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823117 --- Comment #8 from Antonio T. (sagitter) --- Correct and update both SPEC and SRPM files, please. I will review your package one more time within 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823344] Review Request: surgescript - Scripting language for games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823344 --- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/surgescript -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823001] Review Request: simde - SIMD Everywhere
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001 Jun Aruga changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||simde-0.0.0-1.git29b9110.fc ||33 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1773720] Review Request: golang-github-haproxytech-dataplaneapi - HAProxy Data Plane API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773720
Ryan O'Hara changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(bperkins@redhat.c
||om)
--- Comment #9 from Ryan O'Hara ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
- ASL 2.0
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 4 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/rohara/1773720-golang-github-haproxytech-
dataplaneapi/licensecheck.txt
- The source contains LICENSE file containig Apache License 2.0.
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
- The license is definitely installed with the regular rpm and/or the -devel
package. Does this requirement also apply to debuginfo and debugsource
packages? I'm going to assume not.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/logrotate.d
- I don't think this is optional. Having the "suggests" line is the spec seems
ok, but this package is creating a directory with no owner.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
- This seems like an issue with all Go modules, as mentioned above.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
- All good.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: 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 40960 bytes in 4 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
- All good.
[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 uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
Note: Systemd service file(s) in golang-github-haproxytech-
dataplaneapi
[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
[Bug 1823117] Review Request: opensurge - 2D retro platformer inspired by Sonic games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823117 Antonio T. (sagitter) changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823344] Review Request: surgescript - Scripting language for games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823344 Antonio T. (sagitter) changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Antonio T. (sagitter) --- > I've reuploaded the files keeping their original names. Perfect! 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823344] Review Request: surgescript - Scripting language for games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823344 --- Comment #8 from Artur Iwicki --- Eh. I'm having somewhat of a bad day. Sorry for being so confrontational about such an unimportant thing. I've reuploaded the files keeping their original names. spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/surgescript-0.5.4.3-3/surgescript.spec srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/surgescript-0.5.4.3-3/surgescript-0.5.4.3-3.fc32.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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823344] Review Request: surgescript - Scripting language for games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823344 --- Comment #7 from Artur Iwicki --- >Thery're not my wishes, but the Packaging Guidelines: >https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_file_naming I know, but so far people have been fine with the spec name in the srpm. >The SRPM is not versioned this time. How do you make your srpm? "rpmbuild -ba ~/rpmbuilder/SPECS/surgescript.spec" This produces surgescript-0.5.4.3-3.fc32.src.rpm, which I uploaded as surgescript.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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1811775] Review Request: rubygem-semantic_puppet - Useful tools for working with Semantic Versions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811775
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
You didn't fix this:
- Remove these in %install, %exclude is to be used only for file exclusion
between multiple packages:
%exclude %{gem_instdir}/.gitignore
%exclude %{gem_instdir}/.rubocop.yml
%exclude %{gem_instdir}/.travis.yml
%exclude %{gem_instdir}/.yardopts
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1790091] Review Request: androwarn - Static code analyzer for malicious Android applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1790091 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1787452] Review Request: python-devtools - Dev tools for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787452 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Ok package approved, but report the failing tests upstream. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ 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 #26 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mupen64plus -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1815091] Review Request: python-adb - A Python implementation of the Android ADB and Fastboot protocols
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815091 --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Try backporting this patch maybe: https://github.com/google/python-adb/commit/4b555e64d1e49d91ed851c59bb11b734b302f71d.patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1815091] Review Request: python-adb - A Python implementation of the Android ADB and Fastboot protocols
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815091 --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Ok maybe but current package is still not installable: DEBUG util.py:621: Error: DEBUG util.py:621: Problem: conflicting requests DEBUG util.py:621:- nothing provides (python3.8dist(m2crypto) >= 0.21.1 with python3.8dist(m2crypto) <= 0.26.4) needed by python3-adb-1.3.0-2.fc33.noarch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1812961] Review Request: openosc - Open Object Size Checking Library to detect buffer overflows with built-in metrics
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812961
--- Comment #13 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
%prep
%autosetup -n openosc-%{version}
the folder in the archive is OpenOSC-%{version} as I said before. The archive
in the SRPM is not the same as the one downloaded on Github, please fix that.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1773719] Review Request: golang-github-haproxytech-client-native - Go client for HAProxy configuration and runtime API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773719
--- Comment #7 from Ryan O'Hara ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/golang-github-
haproxytech-client-native-devel/README.md
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_duplicate_files
- I don't quite understand this because the files aren't really listed in the
spec file, but rather wee use %gopkgfiles. Also note that this did not happen
with any of the other Go pacakges we are reviewing as part of the haproxy
dataplaneapi. This is interesting, though:
# rpm -q --filesbypkg
golang-github-haproxytech-client-native-devel-1.2.6-2.fc33.noarch.rpm | grep
README
golang-github-haproxytech-client-native-devel
/usr/share/doc/golang-github-haproxytech-client-native-devel/README.md
golang-github-haproxytech-client-native-devel
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/haproxytech/client-native/README.md
golang-github-haproxytech-client-native-devel
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/haproxytech/client-native/runtime/README.md
# md5sum usr/share/doc/golang-github-haproxytech-client-native-devel/README.md
usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/haproxytech/client-native/README
usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/haproxytech/client-native/runtime/README.md
0a47f2b62cb73f6f84520d404d44f9e2
usr/share/doc/golang-github-haproxytech-client-native-devel/README.md
0173e68acc6998d347f71ae13122390d
usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/haproxytech/client-native/README.md
0a47f2b62cb73f6f84520d404d44f9e2
usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/haproxytech/client-native/runtime/README.md
So two of these files are identical, installed in different directories. If you
look at github.com, you can see this README.md is duplicated in the git repo,
too. Perhaps the easiest was to fix this is to ask upstream to remove one of
the files?
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
- ASL 2.0
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/rohara/1773719-golang-github-haproxytech-client-
native/licensecheck.txt
- The source contains LICENSE file containig Apache License 2.0.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
- This seems like an issue with all Go modules, as mentioned above.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
- No %build here.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
- All good.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
- All good.
[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 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]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package
[Bug 1823001] Review Request: simde - SIMD Everywhere
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-129d21b52d has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-129d21b52d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823001] Review Request: simde - SIMD Everywhere
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-660e1e4ca3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-660e1e4ca3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823001] Review Request: simde - SIMD Everywhere
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7e49dc4aad has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7e49dc4aad -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ 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 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #25 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Refreshed flag -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823151] Review Request: thinkpad-tools - Tools to manage ThinkPad properties
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823151 Matthew Miller changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mat...@redhat.com --- Comment #4 from Matthew Miller --- Mightn't it be better to use a proper config file syntax for the persistent settings rather than a bash script? That's really an upstream issue rather than something for package review, though. (Also, along the same lines: thinkpad-tools.service should maybe be `oneshot` rather than `simple`, since it's not a daemon.) I'll file these upstream. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1808467] Review Request: python-pysmt - Solver-agnostic library for SMT Formulae manipulation and solving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808467 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-e1c2193379 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1817811] Review Request: python-scramp - An implementation of the SCRAM protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1817811 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-a77bfc43c6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1801758] Review Request: golang-github-otiai10-copy - Golang copy directory recursively
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1801758 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-04-13 17:24:39 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-a6f0963d2e has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1773717] Review Request: golang-github-haproxytech-models - HAProxy Go structs for API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773717 Ryan O'Hara changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1773717] Review Request: golang-github-haproxytech-models - HAProxy Go structs for API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773717 --- Comment #8 from Brandon Perkins --- (In reply to Ryan O'Hara from comment #7) > > Requires > > golang-github-haproxytech-models-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > go-filesystem > golang(github.com/go-openapi/errors) > golang(github.com/go-openapi/strfmt) > golang(github.com/go-openapi/swag) > golang(github.com/go-openapi/validate) > > - According to the upstream page on github, this requires go-swagger > v0.19.0. Is that the same thing are github.com/go-openapi/swag? Because > upstream has link to > https://github.com/go-swagger/go-swagger/releases/tag/v0.19.0? > So, golang-github-openapi-swag-0.19.0-2.fc31 is described as thus: Description : Contains a bunch of helper functions for go-openapi and go-swagger projects. : : This package contains the source code needed for building packages that : reference the following Go import paths: : – github.com/go-openapi/swag I could be wrong, but the way I'm interpreting everything is that upstream uses go-swagger to generate the representation of the RESTful API (and is committed into the source tree). Then, go-openapi/swag is used to read that representation when compiling. Therefore, go-swagger is just a tool that they use upstream and is not a dependency for building the resulting binary. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1797247] Review Request: golang-github-nats-io-stan - NATS Streaming System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797247 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-04-13 17:24:35 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d82d0b65b9 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1802360] Review Request: golang-github-viant-afs - Abstract File Storage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1802360 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-04-13 17:24:40 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-8748cfd919 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1797117] Review Request: golang-github-eclipse-paho-mqtt - Eclipse Paho MQTT Go client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797117 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-04-13 17:24:37 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-fb0f4ef485 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1797121] Review Request: golang-github-influxdata-promql - Pruned version of the native Prometheus promql package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797121 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-04-13 17:24:36 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d288b645b0 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1773718] Review Request: golang-github-haproxytech-config-parser - HAProxy configuration parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773718
--- Comment #7 from Ryan O'Hara ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
- ASL 2.0
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/rohara/1773718-golang-github-haproxytech-config-
parser/licensecheck.txt
- The source contains LICENSE file containig Apache License 2.0.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
- This seems like an issue with all Go modules, as mentioned above.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
- No %build here.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
- All good.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
- All good.
[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
[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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
- No issues above. Latest version is packaged, should be -devel package only
(no binaries), and there is no upstream gpg key to use for verify.
[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
[Bug 1773717] Review Request: golang-github-haproxytech-models - HAProxy Go structs for API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773717
--- Comment #7 from Ryan O'Hara ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
- ASL 2.0
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/rohara/1773717-golang-github-haproxytech-models/licensecheck.txt
- The source contains LICENSE file containig Apache License 2.0.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
- This seems like an issue with all Go modules, as mentioned above
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
- No %build here.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
- Seems fine.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
- All seems fine.
[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 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
- No issues above. Latest version is packaged, should be -devel package only
(no binaries), and there is no upstream gpg key to use for verify.
[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
[Bug 1823344] Review Request: surgescript - Scripting language for games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823344 --- Comment #6 from Antonio T. (sagitter) --- (In reply to Artur Iwicki from comment #5) > The name of the spec file inside the SRPM is "surgescript.spec". But if you > insist on the URL being the same, then be my guest. > Thery're not my wishes, but the Packaging Guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_spec_file_naming The SRPM is not versioned this time. How do you make your srpm? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1773716] Review Request: golang-github-gehirninc-crypt - Pure Go crypt(3) Implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1773716 Ryan O'Hara changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Ryan O'Hara --- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823344] Review Request: surgescript - Scripting language for games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823344 --- Comment #5 from Artur Iwicki --- The name of the spec file inside the SRPM is "surgescript.spec". But if you insist on the URL being the same, then be my guest. spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/surgescript-0.5.4.3-3/surgescript.spec srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/surgescript-0.5.4.3-3/surgescript.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43343788 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823134] Review Request: GnuCOBOL - GnuCOBOL is a free implementation of the COBOL programming language.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823134 Gwyn Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|DEFERRED|DUPLICATE --- Comment #17 from Gwyn Ciesla --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1823419 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823419] Review Request: gnucobol - COBOL compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823419 Gwyn Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Gwyn Ciesla --- %configure unusable, -devel not needed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823419] New: Review Request: gnucobol - COBOL compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823419 Bug ID: 1823419 Summary: Review Request: gnucobol - COBOL compiler Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: gw...@protonmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description: COBOL compiler, which translates COBOL programs to C code and compiles them using GCC. SRPM: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/gnucobol/gnucobol-3.0-0.rc1.fc31.src.rpm SPEC: https://fedorapeople.org/~limb/review/gnucobol/gnucobol.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823419] Review Request: gnucobol - COBOL compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823419 Gwyn Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tachokni...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- *** Bug 1823134 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823134] Review Request: GnuCOBOL - GnuCOBOL is a free implementation of the COBOL programming language.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823134 Ron Olson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Last Closed||2020-04-13 15:59:26 --- Comment #16 from Ron Olson --- Okay, that's fine by me. I'll close this ticket. Thanks Artur for the review! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823134] Review Request: GnuCOBOL - GnuCOBOL is a free implementation of the COBOL programming language.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823134 --- Comment #15 from Gwyn Ciesla --- Sure, that works for me if it works for you. The tooling requires the maintainer to submit the review but I'll CC you on the new one. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823134] Review Request: GnuCOBOL - GnuCOBOL is a free implementation of the COBOL programming language.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823134 --- Comment #14 from Ron Olson --- Hey Gwyn- Funny, I was going off ftp.gnu.org and they don't have a 3.0, but yeah it seems like that's the version to go with. Would you like to package this? It's fine by me as yours looks more complete than mine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823134] Review Request: GnuCOBOL - GnuCOBOL is a free implementation of the COBOL programming language.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823134 --- Comment #13 from Gwyn Ciesla --- Created attachment 1678467 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1678467=edit My spec for reference -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823134] Review Request: GnuCOBOL - GnuCOBOL is a free implementation of the COBOL programming language.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823134 --- Comment #12 from Gwyn Ciesla --- Upstream indicates 3.0-rc1 is more stable than 2.2, I'd recommend packaging that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823134] Review Request: GnuCOBOL - GnuCOBOL is a free implementation of the COBOL programming language.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823134 Gwyn Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gw...@protonmail.com --- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla --- Was just packaging this myself and thought to search bugzilla before submitting my own review. :) I don't think a -devel package is needed for a compiler. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823151] Review Request: thinkpad-tools - Tools to manage ThinkPad properties
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823151 --- Comment #3 from Dev Singh --- I have also added the package to a COPR for Fedora/CentOS here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/dsingh/thinkpad-tools/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823344] Review Request: surgescript - Scripting language for games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823344 --- Comment #4 from Antonio T. (sagitter) --- (In reply to Artur Iwicki from comment #3) > I'm not entirely sure if the way the License: tag is specified right now is > ok. > > spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/surgescript-0.5.4.3-2.spec > srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/surgescript-0.5.4.3-2.src.rpm > koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43342322 Artur, the name of SPEC file must be `surgescript.spec`. Please, leave a comment about which licenses are used, related to the files involved. Like showed in the guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823344] Review Request: surgescript - Scripting language for games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823344 --- Comment #3 from Artur Iwicki --- I'm not entirely sure if the way the License: tag is specified right now is ok. spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/surgescript-0.5.4.3-2.spec srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/surgescript-0.5.4.3-2.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43342322 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823134] Review Request: GnuCOBOL - GnuCOBOL is a free implementation of the COBOL programming language.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823134 --- Comment #10 from Ron Olson --- Ah, that did the trick! I have uploaded the new spec file and SRPM to https://tachoknight.fedorapeople.org/cobol-lang/. What do you think of my -devel question; I figure that since the whole package is just a Cobol compiler, I don't see what an additional -devel Subpackages provides; I can see a -runtime for the one library, but I guess I just don't see why we need -devel. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823134] Review Request: GnuCOBOL - GnuCOBOL is a free implementation of the COBOL programming language.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823134 --- Comment #9 from Artur Iwicki --- Snooping around the configure script once again, you can pass "--enable-debug" to %configure to make the script leave the -g switch alone. No idea why upstream made the script so adamant to remove it. >Honestly I'm not sure what purpose the debuginfo provides. debuginfo is extracted from the executables/libraries and put inside -debuginfo packages. You can install a debuginfo package and use it to, well, debug a program/library installed from the Fedora repositories. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823091] Review Request: python-freeipa - Lightweight FreeIPA client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823091 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-a729ac8728 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-a729ac8728 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823091] Review Request: python-freeipa - Lightweight FreeIPA client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823091 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-217b6928cc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-217b6928cc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823091] Review Request: python-freeipa - Lightweight FreeIPA client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823091 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-06730065a6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-06730065a6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823134] Review Request: GnuCOBOL - GnuCOBOL is a free implementation of the COBOL programming language.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823134 --- Comment #8 from Ron Olson --- Hi Artur- Sorry, I changed the package name to be more Fedora-friendly. The SRPM is at https://tachoknight.fedorapeople.org/cobol-lang/gnucobol-2.2-1.fc31.src.rpm. The package requires all the files to work properly. For runtime, the libcob.so.4 library is necessary, along with the other libraries in %Requires. I guess I don't understand the need for the -devel subpackage, a -runtime seems more appropriate to run Cobol-compiled binaries. The %configure macro doesn't include -g in the CFLAGS, so the debuginfo list isn't built. Honestly I'm not sure what purpose the debuginfo provides. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823151] Review Request: thinkpad-tools - Tools to manage ThinkPad properties
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823151 Dev Singh changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(mail@fabian-affol ||ter.ch) --- Comment #2 from Dev Singh --- Hello Fabian, Thank you for your comments. I have addressed all of them, however, I believe that the persistence bash script is in the correct place. While it is a bash script, it's really a config file for the user to specify what settings should be applied on startup. Do you have another location in mind for this file? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823381] New: Review Request: golang-github-gin-contrib-cors - CORS gin's middleware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823381 Bug ID: 1823381 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-gin-contrib-cors - CORS gin's middleware Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/golang-github-gin-contrib-cors.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/golang-github-gin-contrib-cors-1.3.1-1.fc31.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/gin-contrib/cors Description: CORS middleware for Gin Gonic. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43339705 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint golang-github-gin-contrib-cors-devel-1.3.1-1.fc31.noarch.rpm golang-github-gin-contrib-cors-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/gin-contrib/cors/.goipath 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint golang-github-gin-contrib-cors-1.3.1-1.fc31.src.rpm golang-github-gin-contrib-cors.src: W: no-%build-section 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823376] New: Review Request: golang-github-gin-contrib-static - Static middleware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823376 Bug ID: 1823376 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-gin-contrib-static - Static middleware Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/golang-github-gin-contrib-static.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/golang-github-gin-contrib-static-0-0.1.20200413gitf81c604.fc31.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/gin-contrib/static Description: Static middleware for Gin Gonic. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43339141 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint golang-github-gin-contrib-static-0-0.1.20200413gitf81c604.fc31.src.rpm golang-github-gin-contrib-static.src: W: no-%build-section 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint golang-github-gin-contrib-static-devel-0-0.1.20200413gitf81c604.fc31.noarch.rpm golang-github-gin-contrib-static-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/gin-contrib/static/.goipath 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1821158] Review Request: python-click-help-colors - Colorization of help messages in Click
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821158 --- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-click-help-colors -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823091] Review Request: python-freeipa - Lightweight FreeIPA client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823091 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-freeipa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823344] Review Request: surgescript - Scripting language for games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823344
--- Comment #2 from Antonio T. (sagitter) ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
Note: surgescript-0.5.4.3-1.spec should be surgescript.spec
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_spec_file_naming
- Main license is the Apache License v2.0 (ASL 2.0 on Fedora)
Some header files are licensed under BSD and Public Domain and installed
by devel sub-package
BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License
-
surgescript-0.5.4.3/src/surgescript/util/xxh3.h
surgescript-0.5.4.3/src/surgescript/util/xxhash.h
*No copyright* Public domain
surgescript-0.5.4.3/src/surgescript/util/utf8.h
Please, update License tag with a related comment.
- `make %{?_smp_mflags}` --> `%make_build`
- %{_includedir}/ is not correct; use %{_includedir}/*
- `libdir=${exec_prefix}/lib` in the pkgconfig files are not correct.
They will not work on 64-bit architectures.
- Do not use macros in the comments, please. (See rpmlint warnings)
= 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)",
"Apache License (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "BSD
(unspecified)", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 107 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/sagitter/1823344-surgescript-0.5.4.3-1/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include(filesystem)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 491520 bytes in 77 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 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named
[Bug 1823001] Review Request: simde - SIMD Everywhere
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823001 --- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/simde -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823365] New: Review Request: golang-github-ns3777k-shodan - Shodan API client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823365 Bug ID: 1823365 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-ns3777k-shodan - Shodan API client Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/golang-github-ns3777k-shodan.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/golang-github-ns3777k-shodan-4.2.0-1.fc31.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/ns3777k/go-shodan Description: A Shodan client written in Go. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43337342 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint golang-github-ns3777k-shodan-4.2.0-1.fc31.src.rpm golang-github-ns3777k-shodan.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/ns3777k/go-shodan/shodan HTTP Error 404: Not Found golang-github-ns3777k-shodan.src: W: no-%build-section 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint golang-github-ns3777k-shodan-devel-4.2.0-1.fc31.noarch.rpm golang-github-ns3777k-shodan-devel.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/ns3777k/go-shodan/shodan HTTP Error 404: Not Found golang-github-ns3777k-shodan-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/ns3777k/go-shodan/shodan/.goipath 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1807682] Review Request: golang-goftp-server - FTP server framework written in Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807682 --- Comment #12 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-goftp-server -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1822536] Review Request: A2 - This is Workload Automation Software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822536 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|NEW --- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini --- You will need to provide a .spec file, a source RPM, and a link to the upstream sources for this project. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823117] Review Request: opensurge - 2D retro platformer inspired by Sonic games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823117
--- Comment #7 from Artur Iwicki ---
Dropping an updated spec with unbundled surgescript.
spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/opensurge-0.5.1.2-3.spec
srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/opensurge-0.5.1.2-3.src.rpm
--
>Source1: CMakeLists.txt
>Why not just package a snapshot release or cherry-pick patches?
I'd argue that taking a file out of a snapshot kinda is a cherry-pick. ;)
Either way, that was mostly needed for linking to surgescript statically, since
the CMakeLists.txt from v.0.5.1.2 doesn't accommodate for that. Now that
surgescript has been unbundled, I dropped this.
>The license tag is "CC-BY and CC-BY-SA and CC0 and Public Domain"
Corrected that.
>Use "%make_build"
Hm, pretty much every Fedora package I've seen uses "make %{?_smp_mflags}".
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823344] Review Request: surgescript - Scripting language for games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823344 Antonio T. (sagitter) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|anto.tra...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Antonio T. (sagitter) --- SPEC files do not contain a version number, just `surgescript.spec` -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823344] Review Request: surgescript - Scripting language for games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823344 Artur Iwicki changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1823117 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823117 [Bug 1823117] Review Request: opensurge - 2D retro platformer inspired by Sonic games -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823344] New: Review Request: surgescript - Scripting language for games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823344 Bug ID: 1823344 Summary: Review Request: surgescript - Scripting language for games Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fed...@svgames.pl QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/surgescript-0.5.4.3-1.spec srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/surgescript-0.5.4.3-1.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43334564 Description: SurgeScript is a scripting language for games. It has been designed with the specific needs of games in mind. Fedora Account System Username: suve -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823117] Review Request: opensurge - 2D retro platformer inspired by Sonic games
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823117 Artur Iwicki changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1823344 --- Comment #6 from Artur Iwicki --- I didn't see much use for surgescript as a separate package, but since you insist, here it goes: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823344 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823344 [Bug 1823344] Review Request: surgescript - Scripting language for games -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823134] Review Request: GnuCOBOL - GnuCOBOL is a free implementation of the COBOL programming language.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823134
--- Comment #7 from Artur Iwicki ---
I wanted to try and build the package locally, but I get a 404 when I try to
fetch the SRPM.
>Also, interestingly enough, if I don't have %global debug_package %{nil} at
>the top of the file, I get this error at the end of packaging:
>error: Empty %files file
>/home/rolson/rpmbuild/BUILD/gnucobol-2.2/debugsourcefiles.list
That's because by default, rpmbuild tries to also create a debuginfo package.
Adding "%global debug_package %{nil}" disables debuginfo generation. In Fedora,
we typically want debuginfo to be generated, so once again, I urge you to
enable debuginfo generation and try to get the package to build with debuginfo.
>%package devel
>Provides: %{name}-devel = %{version}-%{release}
The Provides is unnecessary.
>%configure --prefix=/usr --libdir=%{_libdir}
Now that you use %configure, you can drop --prefix and --libdir - %configure
sets them up appropriately.
Also, looking at files - everything related to libcob has been moved to the
-devel subpackage. An important question now is: can cobc run without the
-devel subpackage installed? Can cobc-generated programs run? If not, you'll
need to add a Requires: on the -devel subpackage to the main package.
Continuing the library topic, I was personally thinking of something more along
the lines of:
- GnuCobol - cobc and related stuff
- GnuCobol-libs - libcob, the versioned .so files
- GnuCobol-libs-devel - unversioned libcob and includes
I haven't really done much work when it comes to packaging libraries, so you
may want to take all of this with a grain of salt. It'll probably be a good
idea to ask someone more experienced in Fedora packaging to come and take a
look.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823319] New: Review Request: python-django-pglocks - Context managers for advisory locks for PostgreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823319 Bug ID: 1823319 Summary: Review Request: python-django-pglocks - Context managers for advisory locks for PostgreSQL Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-django-pglocks.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-django-pglocks-1.0.4-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Context managers for advisory locks for PostgreSQL. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1820799] Review Request: golang-github-evilsocket-islazy - Go library containing a set of opinionated packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820799 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-5d07e48bd8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5d07e48bd8 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1823151] Review Request: thinkpad-tools - Tools to manage ThinkPad properties
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823151
Fabian Affolter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@fabian-affolter.ch
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Fabian Affolter ---
Just some comments to get started...
- URL field is empty -> https://github.com/devksingh4/thinkpad-tools
- Source0 could be %{pypi_source}
- The descriptions should end with a period.
- LICENSE file must be added to the %files section (%license LICENSE)
- /etc/thinkpad-tools-persistence.sh looks misplaced, only configuration files
should go under /etc
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_configuration_files
- Systemd unit files:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Systemd/#_packaging
- Changelog is missing
Also, https://github.com/devksingh4/thinkpad-tools/issues/14 should be
addressed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1822536] Review Request: A2 - This is Workload Automation Software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822536 --- Comment #4 from atgenautomat...@gmail.com --- ATGEN A2 is 'free' upto max 10 managed nodes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1820852] Review Request: golang-github-antchfx-xpath - XPath package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820852 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter --- %changelog * Mon Apr 13 2020 Fabian Affolter - 1.1.5-1 - UPdate to latest upstream stream release 1.1.5 (rhbz#1820852) Updated files: Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/golang-github-antchfx-xpath.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/golang-github-antchfx-xpath-1.1.5-1.fc31.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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1821826] Review Request: golang-github-russross-blackfriday - Markdown processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821826 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2020-04-13 07:24:09 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter --- I see it now thanks...The package was renamed to https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-gopkg-russross-blackfriday-2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1814682] Review Request: rshim - rshim driver for Mellanox BlueField SoC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1814682 --- Comment #44 from Alaa Hleihel (Mellanox) --- Hi Liming, No, I am not using Fedora, I am using RHEL-8.1 (kernel-modules-extra-4.18.0-147.el8.aarch64). > kernel-modules-extra-5.7.0-0.rc0.git8.1.fc33.x86_64 This output was from Honggang, he just was checking the location of the cuse driver. > On the server where the problem exists, have we tried whether the kernel > module based driver works or not? If not working, the SmartNIC FW might be > stuck. We might need power-cycle to recover. Thanks! Yes, I did, and the kernel rshim driver worked fine on the same system. Reboot and power-cycle didn't help when using the user-space rshim. Note that I have an x86_64 system at Mellanox lab with RHEL-8.1 and everything worked well. For now, I see that the issue happens only on this aarch64 system (I don't have another arm system to try). Also, I've tried building upstream kernel v5.6 using the RHEL-8.1 .config file (+ enabling CONFIG_DEVMEM) and I got the same issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
