[Bug 1988781] Review Request: CTML - C++ HTML document constructor only depending on the standard library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988781 --- Comment #3 from Davide Cavalca --- Thanks! $ fedpkg request-repo CTML 1988781 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/36696 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1988781] Review Request: CTML - C++ HTML document constructor only depending on the standard library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988781
Petr Menšík changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pemen...@redhat.com
Status|NEW |POST
Flags||fedora-review+
CC||pemen...@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Petr Menšík ---
Everything seems fine, package is simple with some tests.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Dist tag is present.
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
License". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/pihhan/fedora/1988781-CTML/licensecheck.txt
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for
[Bug 1996325] Review Request: uvw - Header-only easy to use libuv C++ wrapper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1996325 --- Comment #4 from Petr Menšík --- Proof all architectures are built: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75192228 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1996325] Review Request: uvw - Header-only easy to use libuv C++ wrapper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1996325 --- Comment #3 from Petr Menšík --- Updated according to comments. Rebased to the latest version, updated patch and link to PR. Spec URL: https://github.com/pemensik/uvw/raw/fedora/uvw.spec SRPM URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/uvw-2.10.0-2.fc36.src.rpm Changelog warnings can be ignored, they are related to %autochangelog macro not properly handled inside tools. Not related to spec itself. Not sure what it is about ExcludeArch, the package builds on all architectures AFAIK. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2001378] New: Review Request: inertiablast - Steal energy pods to defeat the empire
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2001378 Bug ID: 2001378 Summary: Review Request: inertiablast - Steal energy pods to defeat the empire Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: du...@identicalsoftware.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dulsi/thrust/master/inertiablast.spec SRPM URL: http://identicalsoftware.com/inertiablast/inertiablast-0.91-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: The rebellion captured several warships but lack the energy pod to power the ships. You are part of a risky expedition to steal the energy pods. Defense systems will attempt to stop you. The energy pods are often stored in tunnels making them hard to retrieve. The massive weight of the pod increases the difficultly in getting out. Inertia Blast is a remake of an C64 game called Thrust. Fedora Account System Username: dulsi -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1998370] Review Request: dnf-plugin-flunk_dependent_remove - DNF plugin to prevent removing packages recursively via automation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998370 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-a2a9d304b1 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1998370] Review Request: dnf-plugin-flunk_dependent_remove - DNF plugin to prevent removing packages recursively via automation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998370 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed||2021-09-05 20:15:30 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-9abed9303c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2000347] Review Request: python-mkdocs-redirects - A MkDocs plugin for dynamic page redirects to prevent broken links
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2000347
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
This package is APPROVED. Once the version is tagged on GitHub, please include
the LICENSE and run the actual tests.
= 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]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "*No copyright* Expat License", "Unknown or generated".
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: 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]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the
[Bug 1876108] Review Request: python-pyfiglet - Pure-python FIGlet implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108 --- Comment #10 from Lyes Saadi --- Thank you for taking this back! I will produce a new version of the package soon with the new font system (as this was solved upstream recently), and I will be mailing Fedora Legal's mailing list about potential issues with the rest of the fonts! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1876108] Review Request: python-pyfiglet - Pure-python FIGlet implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876108 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review- |fedora-review? Status|POST|ASSIGNED --- Comment #9 from Andy Mender --- Changing status to ASSIGNED, since this wasn't fully approved yet. Once the font issues are solved, I will have another look at this request :). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1899884] Review Request: mptcpd - multipath TCP daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1899884 --- Comment #7 from Andy Mender --- I see the package has been already uploaded to the repository. Is there anything blocking this request still? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1366835] Review Request: reactive-streams - A Protocol for Asynchronous Non-Blocking Data Sequence
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366835 Didik Supriadi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||didiksupriad...@gmail.com Resolution|ERRATA |DUPLICATE --- Comment #7 from Didik Supriadi --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 2001342 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1366845] Review Request: reactor - Reactive fast data framework for the JVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366845 Didik Supriadi changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||2001342 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2001342 [Bug 2001342] Review Request: reactive-streams - Reactive Streams Specification for the JVM -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2001342] Review Request: reactive-streams - Reactive Streams Specification for the JVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2001342 Didik Supriadi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1353904, 1353905, 1366845 CC||punto...@libero.it --- Comment #2 from Didik Supriadi --- *** Bug 1366835 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353904 [Bug 1353904] CVE-2016-5007 springframework: spring: Path matching inconsistency [fedora-all] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1353905 [Bug 1353905] CVE-2016-5007 springframework-security: spring: Path matching inconsistency [fedora-all] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366845 [Bug 1366845] Review Request: reactor - Reactive fast data framework for the JVM -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2001342] New: Review Request: reactive-streams - Reactive Streams Specification for the JVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2001342 Bug ID: 2001342 Summary: Review Request: reactive-streams - Reactive Streams Specification for the JVM Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: didiksupriad...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/reactive-streams.spec SRPM URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/reactive-streams-1.0.3-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: The purpose of Reactive Streams is to provide a standard for asynchronous stream processing with non-blocking backpressure. Fedora Account System Username: didiksupriadi41 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2001342] Review Request: reactive-streams - Reactive Streams Specification for the JVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2001342 --- Comment #1 from Didik Supriadi --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75178864 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1990930] Review Request: rust-rd-agent - Management agent for resctl-demo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990930
Fabio Valentini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||decatho...@gmail.com
--- Comment #6 from Fabio Valentini ---
Not a formal review (since I have no idea how SELinux policies are supposed to
work).
You'll need to determine the license for the subpackage that contains the
"%{_bindir}/rd-agent" binary.
You can do this by running a mock build like
mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 ./*.src.rpm --without check
then installing dnf-utils into the chroot with
mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 install dnf-utils
then entering the mock chroot with
mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 shell
and printing the licenses of all installed Rust crates with
dnf repoquery --cacheonly "rust-*-devel" --installed --qf "# %{LICENSE}:
%{source_name} %{version}"
This will give you a list of crate packages, their versions, and their License
tags.
The "License" tag of the %{crate} subpackage will then be the effective license
combined from that list.
Alternatively, the following snippet will give you a short, sorted list of
licenses;
which might be an easier starting point for calculating the "effective"
license:
for i in $(rpm -qa | grep "rust-.*-devel"); do
rpm -q $i --qf "%{LICENSE}\n";
done | sort | uniq
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review 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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 2001015] Review Request: doctl - The official command line interface for the DigitalOcean API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2001015 --- Comment #2 from Mikel Olasagasti Uranga --- Spec URL: https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/doctl.spec SRPM URL: https://mikel.olasagasti.info/tmp/fedora/doctl-1.64.0-2.fc34.src.rpm - Fixed build - Added bash, fish and zsh completion -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1833407] Review Request: python-unittest-mixins - A set of mixin classes and other helpers for unittest test case classes.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1833407
Fabian Affolter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Fabian Affolter ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
"*No copyright* Apache License", "Apache License 2.0". 7 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/fab/1833407-python-unittest-mixins/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package 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.
[ ]: 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]: 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]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Description and summary
[Bug 1833407] Review Request: python-unittest-mixins - A set of mixin classes and other helpers for unittest test case classes.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1833407 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@fabian-affolter.ch --- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter --- 'BuildRequires: python3dist(six) >= 1.4' is still there but not a blocker. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1996866] Review Request: python3-configobj - Config file reading, writing, and validation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1996866
Dan Callaghan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@djc.id.au
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Dan Callaghan ---
The .spec doesn't parse successfully on Fedora:
error: line 24: %package -n python3-configobj: package python3-configobj
already exists
I guess because on Fedora, %{python3_pkgversion} is 3 not 36, and so the
`%files -n python3-configobj` is a duplicate name. That prevents me building it
locally, but I think it isn't an issue for Koji because Koji re-parses the spec
inside the buildroot to avoid exactly these kinds of issues.
So due to the above issue, I haven't been able to run the full fedora-review.
However, I note that the .spec is identical to the existing, approved
python-configobj package in every way except for the package name. On that
basis I think it's okay to approve this.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
