[Bug 1872353] Review Request: php-laminas-config3 - Laminas Framework Config component v3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872353 --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet --- Thanks again! SCM requests https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/28003 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/28004 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1872338] Review Request: php-brick-varexporter - A powerful alternative to var_export
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872338 --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet --- Thanks! SCM requests https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/28000 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/28001 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/28002 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1871717] Review Request: php-league-mime-type-detection - Mime-type detection for Flysystem
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871717 --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet --- Thanks! SCM requests https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/27997 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/27998 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/27999 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1873373] New: Review Request: Gcore extension module(crash-gcore-command) for the crash utility
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873373 Bug ID: 1873373 Summary: Review Request: Gcore extension module(crash-gcore-command) for the crash utility Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: liji...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description: Spec URL: https://github.com/lian-bo/fedora-crash-gcore-command/blob/master/crash-gcore-command.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9727/50289727/crash-gcore-command-1.5.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50289726 Description: The crash-gcore-command packages contain an extension module for the crash utility that adds a "gcore" command which can create a core dump file of a user-space task that was running in a kernel dumpfile. In addition, I also maintain the crash-utility in Fedora and upstream. Thanks for your attention. Fedora Account System Username: lijiang -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1871697] Review Request: dhall - A configuration language guaranteed to terminate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871697 --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen --- Thank you so much for the reviews, Robert-André It will be awesome to get dhall into Fedora. I will look into the failure here once those deps are built. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1871452] Review Request: ghc-atomic-write - Atomically write to a file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871452 --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen --- Thank you for the review https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/27996 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1871644] Review Request: ghc-pretty-simple - Pretty printer for data types with a 'Show' instance
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871644 --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen --- Thank you for the review https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/27992 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1871648] Review Request: ghc-text-manipulate - Case conversion, word boundary manipulation, and textual subjugation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871648 --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen --- Thank you for the review https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/27993 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1871643] Review Request: ghc-data-fix - Fixpoint data types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871643 --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen --- Thank you for the review https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/27995 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1867347] Review Request: ghc-modern-uri - Modern library for working with URIs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867347 --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen --- Thank you for the review https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/27994 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1872667] Review Request: python-rich - Render rich text and beautiful formatting in the terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872667 Parag Nemade changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-08-28 03:17:32 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1870907] Review Request: python-iptools - A few useful functions and objects for manipulating IP addresses in python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1870907 --- Comment #3 from Orion Poplawski --- Thanks * Thu Aug 27 2020 Orion Poplawski - 0.7.0-2 - Use %%license - Explicit python files - EPEL compatibility Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-iptools.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python-iptools-0.7.0-2.fc34.src.rpm The EPEL6/7 branches are still active, I think I'll maintain them separately -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1868850] Review Request: fcitx5-chinese-addons - Chinese related addon for fcitx5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868850 --- Comment #11 from Qiyu Yan --- Fixed, not an upstream issue, just because we make libime-data noarch, but s390x is big-endian (different than other koji arches, little endian). Migrating libime-data into libime itself, the problem solved[1]. You can see the different checksum for those files. [1]: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50285077 [2]: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/fileinfo?rpmID=23022098=/usr/share/libime/zh_CN.lm [3]: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/fileinfo?rpmID=23022090=/usr/share/libime/zh_CN.lm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1868850] Review Request: fcitx5-chinese-addons - Chinese related addon for fcitx5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868850 Qiyu Yan changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yanqiyu/fcitx5/fedora-33-x86_64/01633869-fcitx5-chinese-addons/fcitx5-chinese-addons.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/yanqiyu/fcitx5/fedora-33-x86_64/01633869-fcitx5-chinese-addons/fcitx5-chinese-addons-0-0.2.20200812gitef9beb7.fc33.src.rpm Description: Chinese related addon for fcitx5 Fedora Account System Username: yanqiyu -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1868850] Review Request: fcitx5-chinese-addons - Chinese related addon for fcitx5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868850 --- Comment #10 from Qiyu Yan --- I am testing if this comes from the noarch from libime-data, the data will be loaded my mmap, so big little endian will be a problem -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1831347] Review Request: We10X-icon-theme - Icon theme inspired by Microsoft Windows 10 aesthetic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831347 Artur Iwicki changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Fixed In Version||We10X-icon-theme-0-4.202008 ||18git3010fa4a.fc34, ||We10X-icon-theme-0-4.202008 ||18git3010fa4a.fc33 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-08-28 00:20:52 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1863042] Review Request: mingw-libgamerzilla - Library for games to support trophy system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1863042 --- Comment #3 from Dennis Payne --- Spec URL:https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dulsi/libgamerzilla/master/mingw-libgamerzilla.spec SRPM URL: http://identicalsoftware.com/gamerzilla/mingw-libgamerzilla-0.0.5-3.fc32.src.rpm Updated with your changes. (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2) > > Discovered the dlls are not in the right place. > > Does the pkgconfig need fixing too because of this or it's already good? I removed pkgconfig from requirements because other mingw packages which include a pc file do not have the requirement. I don't think anything needs to be changed in pkgconfig. If anything cmake should be updated to put the dlls in the right place but maybe I've just done something incorrectly. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1871171] Review Request: python-RPi-GPIO2 - A libgpiod compatibility layer for the RPi.GPIO API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871171
--- Comment #3 from Joel Savitz ---
(In reply to Fabian Affolter from comment #1)
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #2)
> - The package should be named "python-rpi-gpio2" not "python-RPi-GPIO2"
Package renamed.
> - There is a mismatch between the releases (upstream is 0.3.0a3, package is
> 0.3.0 but 0.3.0a3 is used).
>
> -
>
> Version: 0.3.0
> Release: 1%{?dist}
>
> →
>
> Version: 0.3.0
> Release: 1.a3%{?dist}
I added the alpha version number to the Release
> - The source tarball contains tests. Run them in %check.
>
> - As far as I understand, it needs to run on RPi to do the tests.
Yes, the tests only run on the actual Raspberry Pi device since they rely on
the data structures provided by libgpiod to represent the actual pins.
I was considering instrumenting the library to use a fake gpiod module that
simulates the pin state in software,
but I don't much of a purpose to that other than getting the tests to run on
hardware where the library has no use case. I opened an issue for it on the
GitHub repo a while ago to track this behavior:
https://github.com/underground-software/RPi.GPIO2/issues/16
> - %check is for running tests and not maintenance.
>
> - Do this at the end of install:
>
> rm -rf %{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}/examples
> rm -rf %{buildroot}%{python3_sitelib}/tests
Got it. Moved the maintenance steps to the end of install.
> - This is not needed for a noarch package:
>
> # This package is pure python code so debuginfo is useless
> %global debug_package %{nil}
>
> Just move:
>
> BuildArch: noarch
>
> to the main package.
Done.
> - Ship the examples as part of %doc or as a subpackage. The same applies for
> the documentation.
I included the examples as a -doc subpackage, but I have updated the other
documentation files since the v0.3.0a3 release. I plan to make another upstream
release soon, so I could add those files as an update to this package, or I
could do the upstream release first.
The documentation is also available at http://rpi.gpio2.underground.software/
> Source0:
> https://github.com/underground-software/RPi.GPIO2/archive/v0.3.0a3.tar.gz
>
> →
>
> Source0:
> https://github.com/underground-software/RPi.GPIO2/archive/v%{version}a3/
> %{name}-%{version}a3.tar.gz
>
Changed it to the following to reflect the current repo structure, but I could
modify the release if that is necessary:
Source0:
https://github.com/underground-software/%{pypi_name}/archive/v%{version}
a3.tar.gz
> - Don't mix tabs and spaces
I'm not sure where I made this mistake. Did you spot this in the spec? The
source files were linted with flake8 but I certainly may have missed something.
> - Won't there be an import clash? One is in sitelib, the other in sitearch,
> but if I import the package, which one will be loaded? Shouln't you change
> the name of derectories to GPIO2?
> - %{python3_sitelib}/RPi/ should be renamed. Looks like that there could be
> a naming clash if python-rpi-gpio is installed as well.
Yes, there is a naming clash and this is intentional. python-rpi-gpio is
completely broken and does not work on the latest releases of Fedora as it
relies on non-mainline kernel functionality or access to /dev/mem, disallowed
in Fedora. When one attempts to use python-rpi-gpio, e.g. by entering `>>>
import RPi.GPIO` at the python REPL, the following error is shown:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "./callback.py", line 2, in
import RPi.GPIO as GPIO
File "/usr/lib64/python3.7/site-packages/RPi/GPIO/__init__.py", line 23, in
from RPi._GPIO import *
RuntimeError: This module can only be run on a Raspberry Pi!
I propose that python-rpi-gpio be dropped from Fedora as it is broken on the
Raspberry Pi, its only use case.
This was my original motivation to develop this library, to provide a working
transparent drop-in replacement for the RPi.GPIO API to allow users to make use
of the RPi.GPIO API as it is widely used in tutorials and higher-level
libraries (e.g. gpiozero), and enable more functionality for users of the
Raspberry Pi who wish to run Fedora as their OS.
Updated spec:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/underground-software/RPi.GPIO2/packaging2/packaging/python-RPi-GPIO2.spec
Updated koji build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=50280565
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1873339] Review Request: golang-github-deepmap-oapi-codegen - Go code generator for OpenAPI 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873339 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Don't mix tabs and spaces: golang-github-deepmap-oapi-codegen.src:26: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 5, tab: line 26) → remove the tabs from the Patch0 line - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1873337] Review Request: golang-github-labstack-echo-4 - High performance, minimalist Go web framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873337 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1872867] Review Request: stalld - thread stall detector
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872867
--- Comment #1 from Clark Williams ---
rpmlint run on SRPM:
---
$ rpmlint -i redhat/SRPMS/stalld-1.0-1.fc32.src.rpm
stalld.src: E: specfile-error error: line 2: Empty tag: Version:
This error occurred when rpmlint used rpm to query the specfile. The error is
output by rpm and the message should contain more information.
stalld.src: E: specfile-error error: query of specfile
/tmp/rpmlint.stalld-1.0-1.fc32.src.rpm.b2pufp89/stalld.spec failed, can't parse
This error occurred when rpmlint used rpm to query the specfile. The error is
output by rpm and the message should contain more information.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.
---
I'm not sure if the above is acceptable or not. The issue is that my Version
looks like
this:
Version:%(grep ^VERSION ../Makefile | awk '{print $3}')
meaning that I pull the version number from the main Makefile, so I don't have
to maintain
it in multiple places.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1868850] Review Request: fcitx5-chinese-addons - Chinese related addon for fcitx5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868850 --- Comment #9 from Qiyu Yan --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #8) > > ping? > > Apologies, wasn't aware you were waiting. > > The way I see it is that if upstream provides a test suite and one or more > tests fail on an officially supported Fedora arch, we can't ignore them and > again we would need an ExcludeArch and confirmation from the FPC. Using a ExcludeArch don't need approvement from FPC [1], and this problem is harder to debug. I think we can get this build in rawhide and wait for upstream's fix. [1]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures > > Going forward, we either closely interact with upstream to get fixes for > archs which they don't test on (anything non-x86_64, I'm assuming?) or if > that's too cumbersome we can limit the number of archs fcitx5-chinese-addons > supports, for instance to i386 and x86_64. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1872713] Review Request: atinout - AT commands as input are sent to modem and responses given as output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872713
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- The DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT is included in the macro already:
%make_install
- Not needed, it is the default:
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
- Patch the makefile so that Fedora CFLAGS and LDFLAGS aren't overridden by:
CFLAGS = -W -Wall -Wextra -Werror \
-DVERSION=\"$(VERSION)\" \
-g
LDFLAGS =
Actually just remove these lines entirely so they don't interfere with our
flags.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
later". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/bob/packaging/review/atinout/review-atinout/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: %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.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate
[Bug 1873339] Review Request: golang-github-deepmap-oapi-codegen - Go code generator for OpenAPI 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873339 obu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1872733, 1873337 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872733 [Bug 1872733] Review Request: golang-github-golangci-lint-1 - Fork of the official Go linter with API enhancements https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873337 [Bug 1873337] Review Request: golang-github-labstack-echo-4 - High performance, minimalist Go web framework -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1872733] Review Request: golang-github-golangci-lint-1 - Fork of the official Go linter with API enhancements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872733 obu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1873339 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873339 [Bug 1873339] Review Request: golang-github-deepmap-oapi-codegen - Go code generator for OpenAPI 3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1873337] Review Request: golang-github-labstack-echo-4 - High performance, minimalist Go web framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873337 obu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1873339 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873339 [Bug 1873339] Review Request: golang-github-deepmap-oapi-codegen - Go code generator for OpenAPI 3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1873339] New: Review Request: golang-github-deepmap-oapi-codegen - Go code generator for OpenAPI 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873339 Bug ID: 1873339 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-deepmap-oapi-codegen - Go code generator for OpenAPI 3 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: obu...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/obudai/oapi-codegen/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/01637414-golang-github-deepmap-oapi-codegen/golang-github-deepmap-oapi-codegen.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/obudai/oapi-codegen/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/01637414-golang-github-deepmap-oapi-codegen/golang-github-deepmap-oapi-codegen-1.3.12-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Generate Go client and server boilerplate from OpenAPI 3 specifications. Fedora Account System Username: obudai Cannot be built yet in Koji as it requires golang-github-labstack-echo-4 (not yet reviewed) and golang-github-golangci-lint-1 (approved, waiting to get in Rawhide). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1872830] Review Request: mlir - Multi-Level Intermediate Representation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872830
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Add a comment explaining what the patch does:
Patch0: mlir-cmake-standalone.patch
- Package are missing the arch info with %{?_isa}
%package static
Summary: MLIR static files
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
%description static
MLIR static files.
%package devel
Summary: MLIR development files
Requires: %{name}-static%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
%description devel
MLIR develompent files.
- In onder to avoid unintentional soname bump, wo recommend not globbing the
major soname version:
%{_libdir}/libMLIR*.so.11*
%{_libdir}/libmlir_runner_utils.so.11*
%{_libdir}/libmlir_c_runner_utils.so.11*
%{_libdir}/libmlir_c_runner_utils_static.so.11*
- The build fails with:
[ 61%] Generating LinalgNamedStructuredOps.td, LinalgNamedStructuredOps.cpp.inc
cd
/builddir/build/BUILD/llvm-project-11.0.0rc1/mlir/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/include/mlir/Dialect/Linalg/IR
&& ../../../../../bin/mlir-linalg-ods-gen -gen-ods-decl
/builddir/build/BUILD/llvm-project-11.0.0rc1/mlir/include/mlir/Dialect/Linalg/IR/LinalgNamedStructuredOpsSpec.tc
>
/builddir/build/BUILD/llvm-project-11.0.0rc1/mlir/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/include/mlir/Dialect/Linalg/IR/LinalgNamedStructuredOps.td
../../../../../bin/mlir-linalg-ods-gen: error while loading shared libraries:
libMLIRIR.so.11: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
gmake[2]: ***
[include/mlir/Dialect/Linalg/IR/CMakeFiles/MLIRLinalgNamedStructuredOpsIncGen.dir/build.make:86:
include/mlir/Dialect/Linalg/IR/LinalgNamedStructuredOps.td] Error 127
gmake[2]: *** Deleting file
'include/mlir/Dialect/Linalg/IR/LinalgNamedStructuredOps.td'
gmake[2]: Leaving directory
'/builddir/build/BUILD/llvm-project-11.0.0rc1/mlir/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu'
gmake[1]: *** [CMakeFiles/Makefile2:3574:
include/mlir/Dialect/Linalg/IR/CMakeFiles/MLIRLinalgNamedStructuredOpsIncGen.dir/all]
Error 2
gmake[1]: Leaving directory
'/builddir/build/BUILD/llvm-project-11.0.0rc1/mlir/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu'
gmake: *** [Makefile:152: all] Error 2
Ok Koji has built it on x86_64 but expect some failures otherwise. Try building
without multithreading?
- mlir.src: W: strange-permission mlir-cmake-standalone.patch 600
should be 644
- ASL 2.0 with exceptions does not exist on the valid licenses list:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
Please ask legal ML if this license is suitable for Fedora.
- Not sire what to do with this:
mlir.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information
/usr/lib64/libMLIRCallInterfaces.so.11
mlir.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information
/usr/lib64/libMLIRCopyOpInterface.so.11
mlir.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information
/usr/lib64/libMLIRDerivedAttributeOpInterface.so.11
mlir.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information
/usr/lib64/libMLIRLoopLikeInterface.so.115
mlir.x86_64: E: shared-lib-without-dependency-information
/usr/lib64/libMLIRViewLikeInterface.so.11
Is it expected?
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
"Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* [generated file]". 1469 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/mlir/review-mlir/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/mlir
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package
[Bug 1873302] Review Request: IP2Location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873302
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Use a better name for your archive:
Source0:
https://github.com/chrislim2888/IP2Location-C-Library/archive/%{version}.tar.gz
→
Source0:
https://github.com/chrislim2888/IP2Location-C-Library/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- Not needed:
Group: System Environment/Libraries
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Group: Development/C
rm -rf %{buildroot}
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
%clean
rm -rf %{buildroot}
%defattr(644,root,root,755)
%defattr(-,root,root)
%attr(755,-,-)
- autoreconf -fi → autoreconf -fiv
- make %{?_smp_mflags} → make_build
- make clean shouldn't be needed
- make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} → make_install
- Be more specific:
%{_includedir}/*
- Licenses must be installed with %license in %files and INSTALL shouldn't be
provided
%doc AUTHORS ChangeLog README.md NEWS
%license COPYING LICENSE.TXT
- In order to avoid unintentional soname bump, we recommend not globbing the
major soname version, be more specific instead:
%{_libdir}/*.so*
- Own %{_datadir}/%{name}/tools/ by removing the glob
%{_datadir}/%{name}/tools/
- don't use cp but install -p:
cp tools/download.pl %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name}/tools
→
install -pm 0755 tools/download.pl %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/%{name}/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 1873337] New: Review Request: golang-github-labstack-echo-4 - High performance, minimalist Go web framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873337 Bug ID: 1873337 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-labstack-echo-4 - High performance, minimalist Go web framework Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: obu...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/obudai/oapi-codegen/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01637402-golang-github-labstack-echo-4/golang-github-labstack-echo-4.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/obudai/oapi-codegen/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01637402-golang-github-labstack-echo-4/golang-github-labstack-echo-4-4.1.16-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: High performance, minimalist Go web framework Fedora Account System Username: obudai Cannot be built yet in Koji as its dependency golang-github-labstack-gommon haven't made it yet into rawhide 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 1869907] Review Request: spirv-llvm-translator - LLVM/SPIRV translator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1869907
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
QA Contact|extras...@fedoraproject.org |
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Don't glob so you can own the whole directory:
%{_includedir}/LLVMSPIRVLib/
- Please also update the changelog entry
%changelog
* Wed Aug 19 2020 Dave Airlie - 11.0.0-0.1
- Initial packages of v11.0.0 tag for LLVM 11.0.0
Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issues before import.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: 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.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "[generated
file]", "Khronos License". 552 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/spirv-llvm-
translator/review-spirv-llvm-translator/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are
[Bug 1812711] Review Request: calypso - Free and open-source CalDAV calendar server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812711 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-fc326dde33 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-fc326dde33 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-65d26e1981 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-65d26e1981 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1812711] Review Request: calypso - Free and open-source CalDAV calendar server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812711 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-fc326dde33 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-fc326dde33 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1872508] Review Request: python-sphinx-hoverxref - Sphinx extension to add tooltips on cross references
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872508 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sphinx-hoverxref -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1871997] Review Request: menulibre - MenuLibre is an advanced FreeDesktop.org compliant menu editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871997 --- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin --- LGTM! Happy building! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1872781] Review Request: lxqt-archiver - A simple & lightweight desktop-agnostic Qt file archiver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872781 --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Also own these directories: [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/lxqt-archiver, /usr/libexec/lxqt- archiver -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1869907] Review Request: spirv-llvm-translator - LLVM/SPIRV translator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1869907 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? |needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com | |) | --- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Resetting. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1872781] Review Request: lxqt-archiver - A simple & lightweight desktop-agnostic Qt file archiver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872781
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Not needed in the l10n subpackage since it depends on the main one
%doc CHANGELOG AUTHORS README.md
%license LICENSE
- Please BR gcc-c++ explicitly
%if 0%{?el7}
BuildRequires: devtoolset-7-gcc-c++
%else
BuildRequires: gcc-c++
%endif
- Add a comment for each patch to describe what they do:
Patch0:
https://github.com/lxqt/lxqt-archiver/commit/ecec793534c841cce935093d1e08b9aa227565a8.patch
Patch1:
https://github.com/lxqt/lxqt-archiver/commit/b968e339bebe80ddd017ddf16f70bee52261e533.patch
- Consider providing an Appdata file:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version
2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "*No copyright*
[generated file]", "GNU General Public License". 48 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/lxqt-archiver/review-lxqt-
archiver/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/lxqt-archiver, /usr/libexec/lxqt-
archiver
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 6 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install
[Bug 1872733] Review Request: golang-github-golangci-lint-1 - Fork of the official Go linter with API enhancements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872733 obu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |golang-github-golangci-lint |golang-github-golangci-lint |- Fork of the official Go |-1 - Fork of the official |linter with API |Go linter with API |enhancements|enhancements -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1872542] Review Request: lua-lunitx - Unit testing framework for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872542 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lua-lunitx -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1868044] Review Request: jaxb-istack-commons - iStack Common Utility Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868044 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-08-27 21:23:39 --- Comment #6 from Fabio Valentini --- Built for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1601955 And for fedora 33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1601956 I submitted an update and a buildroot override for f33 and retired the obsoleted package in both these branches. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1871825] Review Request: python-ratelimiter - Python module providing rate limiting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871825
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Same issues: remove:
%global debug_package %{nil}
And add
BuildArch: noarch
in the main package.
- Description must be split to stay under 80 characters per line:
%global _description %{expand:
This package provides the ratelimiter module, which ensures that an operation
will not be executed more than a given number of times on a given period. This
can prove useful when working with third parties APIs which require for example
a maximum of 10 requests per second.}
- This is now automatic, you can safely remove it:
%{?python_enable_dependency_generator}
- Don't own the entire __pycache__ directory, only the files in it:
%{python3_sitelib}/__pycache__/*
- post0 should be specify as extraver:
%global extraver post0
Name: python-%{pypi_name}
Version:1.2.0
Release:1.%{extraver}%{?dist}
Same in your changelog entry:
* Mon Aug 24 2020 Aniket Pradhan -
1.2.0-1.post0
Then fix the pypi_source invocation:
Source0:%{pypi_source %{pypi_name} %{version}.%{extraver}}
And autosetup:
%autosetup -n %{pypi_name}-%{version}.%{extraver}
And %files:
%{python3_sitelib}/%{pypi_name}-%{version}.%{extraver}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated",
"Apache License 2.0". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-ratelimiter/review-
python-ratelimiter/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt
[Bug 1872508] Review Request: python-sphinx-hoverxref - Sphinx extension to add tooltips on cross references
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872508 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST --- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Thanks! ❯ fedpkg request-repo python-sphinx-hoverxref 1872508 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/27968 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1872542] Review Request: lua-lunitx - Unit testing framework for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872542 --- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Thanks! ❯ fedpkg request-repo lua-lunitx 1872542 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/27967 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1871824] Review Request: python-toposort - Implements a topological sort algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871824
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- This should not be needed:
%global debug_package %{nil}
Instead make the main package noarch:
BuildArch: noarch
- Remove the executable bits from these, and send a PR upstream if you can
python3-toposort.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/python3-toposort/README.txt
python3-toposort.noarch: E: script-without-shebang
/usr/share/licenses/python3-toposort/LICENSE.txt
- Split the description to stay under 80 characters per line:
python3-toposort.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C In computer science, a
topological sort (sometimes abbreviated topsort or toposort)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
"Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License". 4 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/python-toposort/review-python-
toposort/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
[Bug 1871432] Review Request: jakarta-interceptors - Jakarta Interceptors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871432 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-08-27 20:55:52 --- Comment #5 from Fabio Valentini --- Built for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1601944 And for fedora 33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1601945 I submitted a buildroot override for f33 and retired geronimo-interceptor. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1872736] Review Request: golang-github-labstack-gommon - Common packages for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872736 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-labstack-gommon -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1872733] Review Request: golang-github-golangci-lint - Fork of the official Go linter with API enhancements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872733 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-golangci-lint -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1872669] Review Request: python3-ldap - API to access LDAP directory servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872669
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Python Software
Foundation License". 167 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python3-ldap/review-
python-ldap/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 153600 bytes in 35 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
[Bug 1871350] Review Request: jakarta-xml-rpc - Jakarta XML RPC API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871350 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-08-27 20:40:59 --- Comment #6 from Fabio Valentini --- Built for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1601941 And for fedora 33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1601942 I submitted a buildroot override for f33 and retired geronimo-jaxrpc. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1872736] Review Request: golang-github-labstack-gommon - Common packages for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872736 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Please add the go-sig as a committer to your Go packages - You either ship one README.md or you must rename the other ones in order not to overwrite them: - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/golang-github-labstack- gommon-devel/README.md See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files %global godocs README.md README-log.md README-color.md\\\ README-bytes.md In %prep: mv log/README.md README-log.md mv color/README.md README-color.md mv bytes/README.md README-bytes.md - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1872542] Review Request: lua-lunitx - Unit testing framework for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872542
Stefano Figura changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Stefano Figura ---
ACCEPT
The package looks good to me!
Package Review
==
Reviewer's Note:
- This is a re-review request for the rename of lua-lunit
- Obsoletes and Provides are correctly found on the specfile
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "*No copyright* Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "Expat
License". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /var/home/returntrip/reviews/lua-lunitx/1872542-lua-
lunitx/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: 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 30720 bytes in 9 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package 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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
[Bug 1872733] Review Request: golang-github-golangci-lint - Fork of the official Go linter with API enhancements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872733 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- AH this package is on my TODO list too: golang-github-labstack-gommon N golang-github-denverdino-aliyungo golang-github-labstack-echo-4 N golang-github-golangci-lint-1 N golang-github-deepmap-oapi-codegen N golang-github-exoscale-egoscale Package is approved but remove the binary, it's not needed in this chain of dependencies. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1872733] Review Request: golang-github-golangci-lint - Fork of the official Go linter with API enhancements
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872733 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - /usr/bin/golint conflict with golang-x-lint. Add a Conflicts or remove the binary if it is not essential, only keeping the library. - What is the reason for packaging this fork? Doesn't the original suit your needs? - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1872510] Review Request: rust-instant - Partial replacement for std::time::Instant that works on WASM too
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872510 Josh Stone changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-08-27 20:19:21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1873199] Review Request: malcontent - Parental controls implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873199
--- Comment #2 from Andy Mender ---
> URL:https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pwithnall/malcontent/
> Source0:
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pwithnall/malcontent/-/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2
You can replace the URL part in Source0 with %{url} to make it a little shorter
and avoid duplication.
> %package ui-devel
> Summary:Development files for libmalcontent-ui
> License:LGPLv2+
> Requires: %{name}-ui-libs%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
> Requires: gtk3-devel
gtk3 provides a pkgconfig file so you can use the "pkgconfig(gtk3)" syntax in
the last line.
I see the project provides a README.md. Could you attach it to all of the
stand-alone packages?
Main review below:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
Review: Yes, a desktop file is listed and should use either of the above.
%files control
%license COPYING
%{_bindir}/malcontent-control
%{_datadir}/applications/org.freedesktop.MalcontentControl.desktop
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
Review: SO is needed internally by the PAM module. That's okay.
[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.
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
Review: Tested by submitter in Koji.
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License GNU
General Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or
later)", "GPL (v2 or later)". 109 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/malcontent/malcontent/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dbus-1,
/usr/share/help/C, /usr/share/help/pt_BR, /usr/share/help/pl,
/usr/share/polkit-1, /usr/lib64/girepository-1.0,
/usr/share/accountsservice, /usr/share/gir-1.0,
/usr/share/polkit-1/actions, /usr/share/polkit-1/rules.d,
/usr/share/help/id, /usr/share/help/uk
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning
[Bug 1872508] Review Request: python-sphinx-hoverxref - Sphinx extension to add tooltips on cross references
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872508
Stefano Figura changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Stefano Figura ---
ACCEPT
The package looks good to me!
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 57 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/var/home/returntrip/reviews/python-sphinx-hoverxref/1872508-python-
sphinx-hoverxref/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
Reviewer's Note: This is a false positive causes by the linter
that matches against RPM_BUILD_ROOT or buildroot but doesn't verify
that it's the end of the line.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: 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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is
[Bug 1873302] Review Request: IP2Location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873302 Peter Bieringer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||guru2...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Peter Bieringer --- *** Bug 1081434 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 1081434] Review Request: ip2location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1081434 Peter Bieringer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed|2014-03-27 14:14:59 |2020-08-27 19:43:34 --- Comment #46 from Peter Bieringer --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1873302 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1873302] New: Review Request: IP2Location - IP2location library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873302 Bug ID: 1873302 Summary: Review Request: IP2Location - IP2location library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: p...@bieringer.de QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/chrislim2888/IP2Location-C-Library/master/contrib/IP2Location.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.bieringer.de/pub/linux/IP2Location/IP2Location-8.0.9-5.fc34.src.rpm Description : IP2Location C library enables the user to get the country, region, city, coordinates, ZIP code, time zone, ISP, domain name, connection type, area code, weather info, mobile carrier, elevation and usage type from any IP address or hostname. This library has been optimized for speed and memory utilization. The library contains API to query all IP2Location LITE and commercial binary databases. Users can download the latest LITE database from IP2Location web site using e.g. the included downloader. Prebuilds fine on fc32/fc34/el8 Fedora Account System Username: pbiering -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1871265] Review Request: fuse-pingfs - store data in ICMP ping packets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871265
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Use %make_build unless the package has issue building multithreaded
%build
%make_build
- No version has been tagged so version/release should be:
Version: 0
Release: 0.1.%{snapinfo}%{?dist}
- Also the date in snapinfo should not be the date of the commit, but the day
you took the snapshot
- You changelog entry is incorrect:
* Thu Aug 20 2020 Mikel Olasagasti Uranga -
0-0.1.20200820gitf2f2b5f
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "ISC License", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/fuse-pingfs/review-fuse-
pingfs/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[Bug 1872510] Review Request: rust-instant - Partial replacement for std::time::Instant that works on WASM too
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872510 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-instant -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1871997] Review Request: menulibre - MenuLibre is an advanced FreeDesktop.org compliant menu editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871997 --- Comment #4 from Lyes Saadi --- Releng issue: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9724 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1872427] Review Request: ec2-hibinit-agent - support for hibernation for Amazon ec2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872427
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- This won't be approved because Py 2 but still some remarks:
%{?systemd_requires} → BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros
- %{__python2} setup.py build → %py2_build
- %{__python2} setup.py install --prefix=usr -O1 --skip-build --root
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT → %py2_install
- In any case don't mix $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}
- Not needed
%defattr(-,root,root)
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- It is forbidden to glob the entire %{python2_sitelib}/ directory, be more
specific instead.
- You must install the LICENSE.txt with %license in %files
- Source0: must either be a URL or you need to specify how to build the Source
- Add your own changelog entry
Maybe try targetinng EPEL7 (I don't know the status of Python 2 in EPEL8)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1873199] Review Request: malcontent - Parental controls implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873199 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1871997] Review Request: menulibre - MenuLibre is an advanced FreeDesktop.org compliant menu editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871997 --- Comment #3 from Lyes Saadi --- Fixed specfile and SRPM uploaded (in fedorapeople.org)! You can take a look if you wish to be sure I fixed your issues ;). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1872542] Review Request: lua-lunitx - Unit testing framework for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872542 --- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/lua/lua-lunitx.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/lua/lua-lunitx-0.8.1-2.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 1872601] Review Request: golang-github-vbauerster-mpb - Multi progress bar for Go CLI applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872601 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Same as before, use: %global goipath github.com/vbauerster/mpb/v5 - Rename your SPEC and bug to golang-github-vbauerster-mpb-5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1867898] Review Request: php-phpunit-php-code-coverage9 - PHP code coverage information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867898 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-0f1a5c83ab has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-0f1a5c83ab` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-0f1a5c83ab 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 1868598] Review Request: php-sebastian-cli-parser - Library for parsing CLI options
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868598 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-433ba4f8a5 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-2020-433ba4f8a5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-433ba4f8a5 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 1839555] Review Request: bloaty - A size profiler for binaries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1839555 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-e2dd9c64bb has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-e2dd9c64bb \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e2dd9c64bb 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 1867896] Review Request: php-sebastian-lines-of-code - Counting the lines of code in PHP source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867896 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-1c41faa664 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-2020-1c41faa664 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1c41faa664 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 1867894] Review Request: php-sebastian-complexity - Calculating the complexity of PHP code units
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867894 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-cee56f3432 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-cee56f3432 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-cee56f3432 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 1867897] Review Request: php-sebastian-global-state5 - Snapshotting of global state
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867897 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-bfd4273c8a has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-bfd4273c8a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bfd4273c8a 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 1867890] Review Request: php-phar-io-manifest2 - Component for reading phar.io manifest information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867890 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-071b3f124c has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-2020-071b3f124c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-071b3f124c 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 1867889] Review Request: php-phar-io-version3 - Library for handling version information and constraints
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867889 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-6cc8bf17d3 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-2020-6cc8bf17d3 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6cc8bf17d3 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 1871997] Review Request: menulibre - MenuLibre is an advanced FreeDesktop.org compliant menu editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871997
--- Comment #2 from Lyes Saadi ---
Thank you for the quick review! I'll make sure to address all of these ;)!
> - Try to use Fedora flag for %py3_install:
>
> %install
> CFLAGS="${CFLAGS:-${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}}" LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS:-${RPM_LD_FLAGS}}" \
> %{__python3} setup.py install --root=%{buildroot}
> rm -rfv
> /home/bob/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}.x86_64/usr/bin/__pycache__
Good idea! I tried using the standard method for building python packages, but
all my attempts failed so miserably, that I just gave up and ended up using the
same method as the old maintainer and totally forgot about build flags!
(Also, I should try to avoid using `/home/bob` :P!)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1872591] Review Request: golang-github-acarl005-stripansi - Helper to remove ANSI color escape codes from strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872591 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1872583] Review Request: golang-github-d5-tengo - Fast script language for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872583
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
I changed a bit how we deal with modules vX:
- use this import path: github.com/d5/tengo/v2
- rename the spec golang-github-d5-tengo-2
- Package only cmd/tengo, the bench thing and stdlib does concern us
%gobuild -o %{gobuilddir}/bin/tengo %{goipath}/cmd/tengo
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this 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 1862949] Review Request: rust-zbus_macros - Proc-macros for zbus
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862949 Marc-Andre Lureau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-08-27 18:31:00 --- Comment #4 from Marc-Andre Lureau --- https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-eb46b39699 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1872574] Review Request: golang-github-blang-semver - Semantic Versioning (semver) library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872574 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||zebo...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2020-08-27 18:21:26 --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- This is a common library and we already have it: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang%2Dgithub%2Dblang%2Dsemver -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1872510] Review Request: rust-instant - Partial replacement for std::time::Instant that works on WASM too
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872510 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1872353] Review Request: php-laminas-config3 - Laminas Framework Config component v3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872353
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License". 120 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/php-laminas-config3/review-
php-laminas-config3/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
[Bug 1872291] Review Request: rust-dbus-codegen - Binary crate to generate Rust code from XML introspection data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872291 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-dbus-codegen -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1872296] Review Request: rust-dbus-crossroads - Framework for writing D-Bus method handlers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872296 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-dbus-crossroads -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1868850] Review Request: fcitx5-chinese-addons - Chinese related addon for fcitx5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868850 --- Comment #8 from Andy Mender --- > ping? Apologies, wasn't aware you were waiting. The way I see it is that if upstream provides a test suite and one or more tests fail on an officially supported Fedora arch, we can't ignore them and again we would need an ExcludeArch and confirmation from the FPC. Going forward, we either closely interact with upstream to get fixes for archs which they don't test on (anything non-x86_64, I'm assuming?) or if that's too cumbersome we can limit the number of archs fcitx5-chinese-addons supports, for instance to i386 and x86_64. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1872338] Review Request: php-brick-varexporter - A powerful alternative to var_export
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872338
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 32 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/php-brick-varexporter/review-php-brick-
varexporter/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
[Bug 1872291] Review Request: rust-dbus-codegen - Binary crate to generate Rust code from XML introspection data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872291 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Specify under Fix metadata what packages you have bumped # - Bump xml-rs to 0.8.3 - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1872296] Review Request: rust-dbus-crossroads - Framework for writing D-Bus method handlers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872296 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Bump to 2.2.2 and install the license files - License ok - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1818999] Review Request: ofono - open source telephony
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1818999 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 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 1871997] Review Request: menulibre - MenuLibre is an advanced FreeDesktop.org compliant menu editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871997
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- You can glob this:
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/*/apps/%{name}.svg
- Requires: hicolor-icon-theme to own the icons directories
- Try to use Fedora flag for %py3_install:
%install
CFLAGS="${CFLAGS:-${RPM_OPT_FLAGS}}" LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS:-${RPM_LD_FLAGS}}" \
%{__python3} setup.py install --root=%{buildroot}
rm -rfv
/home/bob/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/%{NAME}-%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE}.x86_64/usr/bin/__pycache__
Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issues before import.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version
3". 59 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/menulibre/review-menulibre/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must
[Bug 1862947] Review Request: rust-zvariant - API for D-Bus wire format encoding & decoding
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862947 Marc-Andre Lureau changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-08-27 16:19:56 --- Comment #3 from Marc-Andre Lureau --- https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-df4072069a -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1871813] Review Request: python-aioesphomeapi - Library to interact with devices flashed with esphome
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871813
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Bump to 2.6.3
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Expat
License". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-
aioesphomeapi/review-python-aioesphomeapi/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify
[Bug 1873108] Review Request: gnome-tour - GNOME Tour and Greeter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873108 --- Comment #13 from Kalev Lember --- Err, "imported", not "important" :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1873108] Review Request: gnome-tour - GNOME Tour and Greeter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873108 Kalev Lember changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version||gnome-tour-3.37.91-2.fc33 ||gnome-tour-3.37.91-2.fc34 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-08-27 16:14:53 --- Comment #12 from Kalev Lember --- Package important and gnome-tour-3.37.91-2.fc33 and gnome-tour-3.37.91-2.fc34 builds are under way in koji. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1871765] Review Request: thoth-toolbox - This is a toolbox container image for Thoth tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871765 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- I don't understand, what are you expecting from this bug in Review Request, if we don't have anything to 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 1871717] Review Request: php-league-mime-type-detection - Mime-type detection for Flysystem
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871717
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 27 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/php-league-mime-type-detection/review-php-
league-mime-type-detection/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/php/League(php-
league-container, php-league-flysystem, php-league-climate, php-
league-tactician, php-league-plates)
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that
[Bug 1872713] Review Request: atinout - AT commands as input are sent to modem and responses given as output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872713 --- Comment #2 from sorensen...@tuta.io --- Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/fedora-mobile/atinout/-/raw/master/atinout.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/njha/mobile/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01637157-atinout/atinout-0.9.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Successful build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/njha/mobile/build/1637157/ Description: Atinout is a program that reads a list of AT commands. It sends those commands one by one to the modem, waiting for the final result code for the currently executing command before continuing with the next command in the list. The output from the commands is captured. Fedora Account System Username: torbuntu Thank you for the review! I believe I have addressed the issues. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1873108] Review Request: gnome-tour - GNOME Tour and Greeter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873108 --- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-tour -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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 1871432] Review Request: jakarta-interceptors - Jakarta Interceptors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871432 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jakarta-interceptors -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this 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
