[Bug 1900129] Review Request: python-sphinx_selective_exclude - Sphinx eager ".. only::" directive and other selective rendition extensions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900129 --- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1) > Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56068931 > > > Looks good. Package approved! Full review below: Thanks Andy! ❯ fedpkg request-repo python-sphinx_selective_exclude 1900129 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/30851 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900228] Review Request: python-FireflyAlgorithm - Implementation of Firefly Algorithm (FA) for optimization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900228 --- Comment #2 from Iztok Fister Jr. --- Thanks again for a quick response. Both comments were fixed. Current version is now consistent with upstream. In current spec, only one variable is now used. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1889431] Review Request: python-pytest-httpx - Send responses to httpx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1889431 Georg Sauthoff changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(mail@fabian-affol ||ter.ch) --- Comment #5 from Georg Sauthoff --- Fabian, is there some way I can help you to get the already reviewed spec file into 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 1900229] Review Request: python-pytest-testinfra - Unit testing for config-managed server state [Package rename]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900229 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Andy Mender --- Very nice! 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 1900069] Review Request: python-matrix-nio - A Matrix client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900069 --- Comment #3 from Andy Mender --- No problem at all! That's why we have reviews :). I double-checked the files reported as ASL 2.0 and indeed, licensecheck was correct. nio/crypto/attachments.py was pulled from matrix-python-sdk originally so it might be that other bits were as well. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1896742] Review Request: python3-radexreader - Reader for the RADEX RD1212 Geiger counter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1896742 --- Comment #12 from c...@luigifab.fr --- Wow, sorry, I did not read correctly your suggestion for Source0, I changed. I also removed the change of the README in spec. I will prepare a section in the original README soon. I rebuilded: Spec URL: https://github.com/luigifab/python-radexreader/raw/master/fedora/python-radexreader.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2415/56072415/python-radexreader-1.0.0-1.fc32.src.rpm KOJI BUILD: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56072302 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900069] Review Request: python-matrix-nio - A Matrix client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900069 --- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1) > Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56071222 > > > License:MIT > > The license is "ISC" according to the PyPi page: > https://pypi.org/project/matrix-nio/ > > Also, licensecheck found a couple of files with the Apache 2 license: > Apache License 2.0 > -- > matrix-nio-0.15.2/nio/crypto/attachments.py > matrix-nio-0.15.2/nio/crypto/key_export.py > matrix-nio-0.15.2/nio/store/database.py > matrix-nio-0.15.2/nio/store/models.py > > So the License field should probably read: ASL 2.0 and ISC > > The rest is okay. Please, fix it on package import. Approved! Full review > below: Thanks for the review Andy. Sorry, dunno how I missed the license. I'll fix that before import. I'll request SCM now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1900411] Review Request: rust-typetag - Serde serializable and deserializable trait objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900411 Olivier Lemasle changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1900413 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900413 [Bug 1900413] Review Request: rust-typetag-impl - Implementation detail of the typetag crate -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900413] Review Request: rust-typetag-impl - Implementation detail of the typetag crate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900413 Olivier Lemasle changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1900411 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900411 [Bug 1900411] Review Request: rust-typetag - Serde serializable and deserializable trait objects -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900372] Review Request: python-webob-graphql - Adds GraphQL support to your WebOb application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900372 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2020-11-22 19:21:36 --- Comment #2 from Mattia Verga --- Ah, this package requires graphql-server-core, which isn't packaged in Fedora. Moreover I've just discovered that "graphql-server-core" has become "graphql-server" which provides its own webob interface, so I think this review is no more required. Thanks for your work. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1900413] Review Request: rust-typetag-impl - Implementation detail of the typetag crate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900413 --- Comment #1 from Olivier Lemasle --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56077108 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900413] New: Review Request: rust-typetag-impl - Implementation detail of the typetag crate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900413 Bug ID: 1900413 Summary: Review Request: rust-typetag-impl - Implementation detail of the typetag crate Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: o.lema...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-typetag-impl.spec SRPM URL: https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-typetag-impl-0.1.6-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Implementation detail of the typetag crate. Fedora Account System Username: olem -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900411] Review Request: rust-typetag - Serde serializable and deserializable trait objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900411 Olivier Lemasle changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1900405 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900405 [Bug 1900405] Review Request: rust-inventory - Typed distributed plugin registration -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900405] Review Request: rust-inventory - Typed distributed plugin registration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900405 Olivier Lemasle changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1900411 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900411 [Bug 1900411] Review Request: rust-typetag - Serde serializable and deserializable trait objects -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900411] New: Review Request: rust-typetag - Serde serializable and deserializable trait objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900411 Bug ID: 1900411 Summary: Review Request: rust-typetag - Serde serializable and deserializable trait objects Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: o.lema...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-typetag.spec SRPM URL: https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-typetag-0.1.6-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Serde serializable and deserializable trait objects. Fedora Account System Username: olem -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1899884] Review Request: mptcpd - multipath TCP daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1899884
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56073379
> Release: 1%{?dist}
> License: GPL
Upstream mentions the package is BSD-licensed:
https://github.com/intel/mptcpd/blob/master/COPYING
However, that's a different upstream than the one linked on the page from the
URL: https://multipath-tcp.org/
Sources: https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp/blob/mptcp_v0.95/COPYING
licensecheck reports GPL, LGPL and BSD:
*No copyright* GNU General Public License (v2.0)
mptcpd-0.5/LICENSES/README
BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License
---
mptcpd-0.5/COPYING
GNU Lesser General Public License
-
mptcpd-0.5/LICENSES/COPYING.GPL
The versions don't match either. The original project (?) features 0.95:
http://multipath-tcp.org/pmwiki.php?n=Main.Release95
The Intel project features 0.5:
https://github.com/intel/mptcpd/releases/tag/v0.5
Could it be that the Source0 field is wrong?
> BuildRequires: libtool
> BuildRequires: automake
> BuildRequires: autoconf
> BuildRequires: autoconf-archive
> BuildRequires: libell-devel
> BuildRequires: systemd-units
Missing BuildRequires on gcc and/or gcc-c++ or clang
> Source0:
> https://github.com/intel/mptcpd/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
It's possible to get a fully named tarball via a slightly different URL:
> https://github.com/intel/mptcpd/archive/v0.5/mptcpd-0.5.tar.gz
That way you don't have to alias :). However, see earlier comment about
sources.
> %install
> install -d %{buildroot}/%{_libexecdir}
> install -d %{buildroot}/%{_mandir}/man8
> install -d %{buildroot}/%{_sysconfdir}/%{name}
> make DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install
Double check, but I think above is the default behavior of the %make_install
macro so it can be used instead.
> find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -exec rm -f {} ';'
> %ldconfig_scriptlets
%ldconfig_scriplets are no longer necessary I believe. However, the hooks for
systemd units are missing. Described here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets
> %package devel
> Summary: MPTCP path manager header files
> Group: Development/Libraries
> Requires: pkgconfig
> License: GPL
The -devel subpackage should typically have a versioned Requires on the main
package like so:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
> %{_libdir}/libmptcpd.*
> %{_libdir}/mptcpd/*.so
Are the SO files in %{_libdir}/mptcpd/ internal to the package? They don't need
to be versioned, correct?
> %{_libexecdir}/%{name}
> %{_unitdir}/mptcp.service
The %{_unitdir} macro requires BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros
Full review below:
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++/
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_devel_packages
- systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
Note: Systemd service file(s) in mptcpd
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets
= 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]: 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
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "*No copyright* GNU
General Public License (v2.0)". 78 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/data/rpmbuild/SPECS/mptcpd/mptcpd/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Review: No yet. See earlier comments about the -devel subpackage Requires.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it
[Bug 1900405] Review Request: rust-inventory - Typed distributed plugin registration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900405 Olivier Lemasle changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1900399 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900399 [Bug 1900399] Review Request: rust-ghost - Define your own PhantomData -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900399] Review Request: rust-ghost - Define your own PhantomData
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900399 Olivier Lemasle changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1900405 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900405 [Bug 1900405] Review Request: rust-inventory - Typed distributed plugin registration -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900400] Review Request: rust-ctor - Module initialization/teardown functions for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900400 Olivier Lemasle changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1900405 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900405 [Bug 1900405] Review Request: rust-inventory - Typed distributed plugin registration -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900405] Review Request: rust-inventory - Typed distributed plugin registration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900405 Olivier Lemasle changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1900400 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900400 [Bug 1900400] Review Request: rust-ctor - Module initialization/teardown functions for Rust -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900405] Review Request: rust-inventory - Typed distributed plugin registration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900405 Olivier Lemasle changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1900402 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900402 [Bug 1900402] Review Request: rust-inventory-impl - Implementation of macros for the `inventory` crate -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900402] Review Request: rust-inventory-impl - Implementation of macros for the `inventory` crate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900402 Olivier Lemasle changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1900405 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900405 [Bug 1900405] Review Request: rust-inventory - Typed distributed plugin registration -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900405] New: Review Request: rust-inventory - Typed distributed plugin registration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900405 Bug ID: 1900405 Summary: Review Request: rust-inventory - Typed distributed plugin registration Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: o.lema...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-inventory.spec SRPM URL: https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-inventory-0.1.9-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Typed distributed plugin registration. Fedora Account System Username: olem -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1885048] Review Request: foma - Xerox-compatible finite-state compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885048 Ville-Pekka Vainio changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-11-22 18:43:35 --- Comment #5 from Ville-Pekka Vainio --- Built in Rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56075563 For some reason I did not get an F33 branch during unretirement. I've asked for that here: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/30842 I am closing this bug report now. Thank you for your help, Robert-André and Petr. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900402] New: Review Request: rust-inventory-impl - Implementation of macros for the `inventory` crate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900402 Bug ID: 1900402 Summary: Review Request: rust-inventory-impl - Implementation of macros for the `inventory` crate Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: o.lema...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-inventory-impl.spec SRPM URL: https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-inventory-impl-0.1.9-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Implementation of macros for the `inventory` crate. Fedora Account System Username: olem -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900397] Review Request: neochat - Client for matrix, the decentralized communication protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900397
Artem changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||ego.corda...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ego.corda...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Artem ---
App works fine. License OK. Just few deps needed: kf5-kitemmodels &
kf5-kirigami2. Please fix 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]: 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* GNU General Public
License, Version 3", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "GNU General
Public License, Version 2". 112 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /mnt/data-linux/tmp/fedora-
review/1900397-neochat/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[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
[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.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: 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 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 =
[Bug 1900400] Review Request: rust-ctor - Module initialization/teardown functions for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900400 Olivier Lemasle changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1900398 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900398 [Bug 1900398] Review Request: rust-libc-print - Println! and eprintln! macros on libc without stdlib -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900398] Review Request: rust-libc-print - Println! and eprintln! macros on libc without stdlib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900398 Olivier Lemasle changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1900400 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900400 [Bug 1900400] Review Request: rust-ctor - Module initialization/teardown functions for Rust -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900400] New: Review Request: rust-ctor - Module initialization/teardown functions for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900400 Bug ID: 1900400 Summary: Review Request: rust-ctor - Module initialization/teardown functions for Rust Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: o.lema...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-ctor.spec SRPM URL: https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-ctor-0.1.16-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Module initialization/teardown functions for Rust (like __attribute__((constructor)) in C/C++). Fedora Account System Username: olem -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900399] Review Request: rust-ghost - Define your own PhantomData
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900399 --- Comment #1 from Olivier Lemasle --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56074887 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900399] New: Review Request: rust-ghost - Define your own PhantomData
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900399 Bug ID: 1900399 Summary: Review Request: rust-ghost - Define your own PhantomData Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: o.lema...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-ghost.spec SRPM URL: https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-ghost-0.1.2-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Define your own PhantomData. Fedora Account System Username: olem -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900229] Review Request: python-pytest-testinfra - Unit testing for config-managed server state [Package rename]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900229 --- Comment #2 from chedi toueiti --- @andy, thanx for taking the time to review this package. I updated the spec file following your recommendation's and correction's (same links). Spec URL: https://chedi.fedorapeople.org/python-pytest-testinfra.spec SRPM URL: https://chedi.fedorapeople.org/python-pytest-testinfra-6.1.0-1.fc33.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 1900398] New: Review Request: rust-libc-print - Println! and eprintln! macros on libc without stdlib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900398 Bug ID: 1900398 Summary: Review Request: rust-libc-print - Println! and eprintln! macros on libc without stdlib Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: o.lema...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-libc-print.spec SRPM URL: https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-libc-print-0.1.14-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Println! and eprintln! macros on libc without stdlib. Fedora Account System Username: olem -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900398] Review Request: rust-libc-print - Println! and eprintln! macros on libc without stdlib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900398 --- Comment #1 from Olivier Lemasle --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56074742 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900397] New: Review Request: neochat - Client for matrix, the decentralized communication protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900397 Bug ID: 1900397 Summary: Review Request: neochat - Client for matrix, the decentralized communication protocol Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: vit...@easycoding.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://github.com/EasyCoding/qmatrix/raw/master/neochat.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/xvitaly/matrix/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01783785-neochat/neochat-0-1.20201122git4dedb87.fc34.src.rpm Description: Client for matrix, the decentralized communication protocol Fedora Account System Username: xvitaly -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900396] New: Review Request: neochat - Client for matrix, the decentralized communication protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900396 Bug ID: 1900396 Summary: Review Request: neochat - Client for matrix, the decentralized communication protocol Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: vit...@easycoding.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://github.com/EasyCoding/qmatrix/raw/master/neochat.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/xvitaly/matrix/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01783785-neochat/neochat-0-1.20201122git4dedb87.fc34.src.rpm Description: Client for matrix, the decentralized communication protocol Fedora Account System Username: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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 1899884] Review Request: mptcpd - multipath TCP daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1899884 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 1898135] Review Request: python-pyerfa - Python wrapper for the ERFA library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1898135
--- Comment #2 from Andy Mender ---
> Summary:Python wrapper for the ERFA library
> License:BSD
licensecheck picked up a couple of extras. Not sure whether they should be
mentioned in the License field, since they look like helper libraries:
Expat License
-
pyerfa-1.7.1.1/liberfa/erfa/build-aux/install-sh
FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)
--
pyerfa-1.7.1.1/liberfa/erfa/m4/ltoptions.m4
pyerfa-1.7.1.1/liberfa/erfa/m4/ltsugar.m4
pyerfa-1.7.1.1/liberfa/erfa/m4/ltversion.m4
pyerfa-1.7.1.1/liberfa/erfa/m4/lt~obsolete.m4
FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License (v2)
--
pyerfa-1.7.1.1/liberfa/erfa/m4/libtool.m4
> # Python BuildRequires
> BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-devel
> BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-jinja2
> BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-pytest-astropy
> BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-setuptools
> BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-setuptools_scm
Python BuildRequires and Requires should follow the format "python3dist(foo)":
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_dependencies
> %{?python_enable_dependency_generator}
The dependency generator is on by default.
> %package -n python%{python3_pkgversion}-%{pypi_name}
Not sure about the "python3_pkgversion" macro. Is it actually needed?
> Summary:%{summary}
> %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{pypi_name}}
Please, use the %py_provides macro:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_py_provides_macro
> %if %{undefined python_enable_dependency_generator} && %{undefined
> python_disable_dependency_generator}
> # Put manual requires here:
> Requires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-foo
> %endif
Not sure whether it's a good idea to keep this in the SPEC file. There is no
package called "python3-foo" and it may break.
> Rpmlint
> ---
> Checking: python3-pyerfa-1.7.1.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
> python-pyerfa-debugsource-1.7.1.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
> python-pyerfa-1.7.1.1-1.fc33.src.rpm
> python3-pyerfa.x86_64: W: python-bytecode-without-source
> /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/erfa/tests/__pycache__/test_erfa.cpython-39-pytest-6.0.2.pyc
> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
The file mentioned above should probably be removed.
Full review below:
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]: 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
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "Expat License", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU
General Public License (v2)", "FSF Unlimited License (with
Retention)". 232 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-pyerfa/python-
pyerfa/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
[Bug 1898135] Review Request: python-pyerfa - Python wrapper for the ERFA library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1898135 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 1900069] Review Request: python-matrix-nio - A Matrix client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900069
Andy Mender changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56071222
> License:MIT
The license is "ISC" according to the PyPi page:
https://pypi.org/project/matrix-nio/
Also, licensecheck found a couple of files with the Apache 2 license:
Apache License 2.0
--
matrix-nio-0.15.2/nio/crypto/attachments.py
matrix-nio-0.15.2/nio/crypto/key_export.py
matrix-nio-0.15.2/nio/store/database.py
matrix-nio-0.15.2/nio/store/models.py
So the License field should probably read: ASL 2.0 and ISC
The rest is okay. Please, fix it on package import. Approved! Full review
below:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "*No copyright* ISC License", "Unknown or generated", "ISC
License", "Apache License 2.0". 11 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-matrix-
nio/python-matrix-nio/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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 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
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.
[Bug 1900228] Review Request: python-FireflyAlgorithm - Implementation of Firefly Algorithm (FA) for optimization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900228
--- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
One blocker:
- The version in setup.py is 0.0.1, but the tag on GitHub is 0.1? This needs to
be double-checked with upstream: is the setup.py wrong?
Non blockers:
- Minor nitpick: any reason for defining two variables with the same value? We
could use just one of them?
- You don't need to repeat the BRs.
= 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". 4 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asinha/dump/fedora-
reviews/1900228-python-FireflyAlgorithm/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package 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
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.
^
Not tested this out yet.
[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
[Bug 1900129] Review Request: python-sphinx_selective_exclude - Sphinx eager ".. only::" directive and other selective rendition extensions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900129
Andy Mender changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56068931
Looks good. Package approved! Full review below:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
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: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Unknown or generated". 14
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/data/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-sphinx_selective_exclude/python-
sphinx_selective_exclude/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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 installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package 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:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]:
[Bug 1900069] Review Request: python-matrix-nio - A Matrix client library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900069 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1900369] Review Request: python-graphene-sqlalchemy - Graphene SQLAlchemy integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900369
Andy Mender changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
> # License text is not provided within Pypi sources
> Source1:LICENSE
If a ticket to add the LICENSE file to the source tree was submitted, please
also add it in a comment above this line.
The usual practice is that if a license file is missing, a request is made to
upstream to add it to the release tarball and/or the source tree, and only then
it is added to the RPM package via the SPEC file. See, below line from the
review matrix:
> [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
Therefore, one shouldn't just add a matching license file if it doesn't
explicitly come from upstream, unless they agreed to it.
I see a LICENSE file is in the source tree, though:
https://github.com/graphql-python/graphene-sqlalchemy
So perhaps it would be better to switch to GitHub release tarballs for sources?
Please, fix it on package import. Approved. Full review below:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 28 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/data/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-graphene-sqlalchemy/python-graphene-
sqlalchemy/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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 installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package 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
[Bug 1900375] New: Review Request: rust-more-asserts - Small assertion library for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900375 Bug ID: 1900375 Summary: Review Request: rust-more-asserts - Small assertion library for Rust Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: o.lema...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-more-asserts.spec SRPM URL: https://olem.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rust-more-asserts-0.2.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Small library providing additional assert_* and debug_assert_* macros. Fedora Account System Username: olem -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900375] Review Request: rust-more-asserts - Small assertion library for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900375 --- Comment #1 from Olivier Lemasle --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56070531 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900369] Review Request: python-graphene-sqlalchemy - Graphene SQLAlchemy integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900369 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1900372] Review Request: python-webob-graphql - Adds GraphQL support to your WebOb application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900372
Andy Mender changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
Looks good. Package approved! Full review below:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
= MUST items =
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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/data/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-webob-graphql/python-webob-
graphql/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package 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:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[Bug 1900372] Review Request: python-webob-graphql - Adds GraphQL support to your WebOb application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900372 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1900189] Review Request: python-rdflib-jsonld - Python rdflib extension adding JSON-LD parser and serializer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900189
--- Comment #2 from Aniket Pradhan ---
> I think the %py_provides macro should be used instead:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/
> #_the_py_provides_macro
Welp... I have not been updated with the guidelines for some time now :P
I'll use it instead
>
> > %package doc
> > Summary:%{summary}
> > BuildRequires: %{py3_dist sphinx}
>
> I might be wrong, but I think one should also add below to the -doc
> subpackage:
> Requires: python3-%{pypi_name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
I'm not sure too, since the docs and the package are separated out, so both
aren't dependent on each other. I'll still ask around.
> > %changelog
> > * Sat Nov 21 2020 Aniket Pradhan - 0.5.1-1
> > - Initial build
>
> The most recent release is 0.5.0 I think.
The errors of copy-pasta :P
I'll patch it.
> As these are minor, you can fix the issues on package import. Approved. Full
> review below:
Thanks for your 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 1900129] Review Request: python-sphinx_selective_exclude - Sphinx eager ".. only::" directive and other selective rendition extensions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900129 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 1900181] Review Request: python-datrie - Efficiently stored Trie Data Structure for Python (uses libdatrie)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900181 --- Comment #2 from Aniket Pradhan --- > Some of the lines are a little too long and rpmlint complains: > python3-datrie.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C trie variable is a > dict-like object that can have unicode keys of certain ranges and Python > objects as values. > python3-datrie.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C In addition to > implementing the mapping interface, tries facilitate finding the items for a > given prefix, and vice > python3-datrie.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C versa, finding the > items whose keys are prefixes of a given string. As a common special case, > finding the Sure. I'll limit it to 80 characters. > > I had to add in a small patch since the string decoding inside the module > > is by default for little-endian machines. Please refer to this [0] ticket > > for more info. > > > # Patch to correctly decode on big/little endian systems > > Patch0: > > 0001-BUG-Decode-string-based-on-byteorder-of-system.patch > > If there is an open ticket somewhere, could you add it in a comment above > the Patch0 line as well? Will add that too ^.^ > Otherwise looks good. Approved! Full review below: Thanks for your 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 1900372] New: Review Request: python-webob-graphql - Adds GraphQL support to your WebOb application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900372 Bug ID: 1900372 Summary: Review Request: python-webob-graphql - Adds GraphQL support to your WebOb application Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mattia.ve...@protonmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/python-webob-graphql.spec SRPM URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/python-webob-graphql-1.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Adds GraphQL support to your WebOb (Pyramid, Pylons, ...) application. Fedora Account System Username:mattia Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56068381 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900369] New: Review Request: python-graphene-sqlalchemy - Graphene SQLAlchemy integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900369 Bug ID: 1900369 Summary: Review Request: python-graphene-sqlalchemy - Graphene SQLAlchemy integration Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mattia.ve...@protonmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/python-graphene-sqlalchemy.spec SRPM URL: https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/python-graphene-sqlalchemy-2.3.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: A SQLAlchemy integration for Graphene. Fedora Account System Username:mattia Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56068301 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1900181] Review Request: python-datrie - Efficiently stored Trie Data Structure for Python (uses libdatrie)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900181
Andy Mender changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
> %global _description %{expand:
> The library implements the Trie data structure. The trie variable is a
> dict-like object that can have Unicode keys of certain ranges and Python
> objects as values.
>
> In addition to implementing the mapping interface, the library tries to
> facilitate finding the items for a given prefix, and vice versa, finding the
> items whose keys are prefixes of a given string. As a common special case,
> finding the longest-prefix item is also supported.}
Some of the lines are a little too long and rpmlint complains:
python3-datrie.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C trie variable is a
dict-like object that can have unicode keys of certain ranges and Python
objects as values.
python3-datrie.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C In addition to
implementing the mapping interface, tries facilitate finding the items for a
given prefix, and vice
python3-datrie.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C versa, finding the items
whose keys are prefixes of a given string. As a common special case, finding
the
> I had to add in a small patch since the string decoding inside the module is
> by default for little-endian machines. Please refer to this [0] ticket for
> more info.
> # Patch to correctly decode on big/little endian systems
> Patch0:
> 0001-BUG-Decode-string-based-on-byteorder-of-system.patch
If there is an open ticket somewhere, could you add it in a comment above the
Patch0 line as well?
Otherwise looks good. Approved! Full review below:
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.
Review: Internal to the package. No problem.
[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 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* GNU Lesser General
Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)".
19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/data/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-datrie/python-datrie/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[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
[Bug 1900181] Review Request: python-datrie - Efficiently stored Trie Data Structure for Python (uses libdatrie)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900181 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 1900189] Review Request: python-rdflib-jsonld - Python rdflib extension adding JSON-LD parser and serializer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900189
Andy Mender changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
> %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{pypi_name}}
I think the %py_provides macro should be used instead:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_py_provides_macro
> %package doc
> Summary:%{summary}
> BuildRequires:%{py3_dist sphinx}
I might be wrong, but I think one should also add below to the -doc subpackage:
Requires: python3-%{pypi_name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
> %changelog
> * Sat Nov 21 2020 Aniket Pradhan - 0.5.1-1
> - Initial build
The most recent release is 0.5.0 I think.
As these are minor, you can fix the issues on package import. Approved. Full
review below:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
= MUST items =
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: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or
generated". 308 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /data/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-rdflib-jsonld/python-
rdflib-jsonld/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: 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
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
[Bug 1900229] Review Request: python-pytest-testinfra - Unit testing for config-managed server state [Package rename]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900229
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56066714
> BuildRequires: python3-devel
> BuildRequires: python3-setuptools
> BuildRequires: python3-setuptools_scm
>
> # testing requirements
> BuildRequires: ansible-python3
> BuildRequires: python3-pytest
> BuildRequires: python3-paramiko
> BuildRequires: python3-winrm
>
> # docs requirements
> BuildRequires: python3-sphinx
Python Requires and BuildRequires should follow the format "python3dist(foo)".
> Suggests: python3-pytest-xdist
> %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{srcname}}
Instead, %py_provides should be used like here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_the_py_provides_macro
Also, you're missing the Provides and Obsoletes necessary for package renaming
as explained here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages
> %changelog
> * Sat Nov 21 2020 Chedi Toueiti - 6.1.0
> - Package rename to pytest-infra
The new package is called "pytest-testinfra", however.
Full review below:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
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". 38
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/data/rpmbuild/SPECS/python-pytest-testinfra/python-pytest-
testinfra/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 839680 bytes in 39 files.
Review: the Sphinx docs should probably be split off to a -doc subpackage.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package 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
[Bug 1900189] Review Request: python-rdflib-jsonld - Python rdflib extension adding JSON-LD parser and serializer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900189 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 1900229] Review Request: python-pytest-testinfra - Unit testing for config-managed server state [Package rename]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900229 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1896742] Review Request: python3-radexreader - Reader for the RADEX RD1212 Geiger counter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1896742
--- Comment #11 from Andy Mender ---
> URL: https://github.com/luigifab/python-radexreader
> Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz
I see the Source0 field is still the same. One of the reasons
"%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz" is arguably better, is because it clearly
identifies your tarball. "v%{version}.tar.gz" is very ambiguous and can get
easily mixed up with other packages and tarballs.
> I kept the change in README.md to allow people that read the
> /usr/share/doc/python3-radexreader/README.md to known the "website" of the
> app.
I still think it makes more sense to have an extra section in the original
README (in the source tree, committed to git) with the URL, rather than
modifying the sources in the SPEC file. You can then cut a patch release,
1.0.1, with the change and everyone who has access to the sources can refer to
that feature.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review 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
