[Bug 2127450] Review Request: haruna - video player built with Qt/QML and libmpv

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127450

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-6e750c3ffd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6e750c3ffd


-- 
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127450
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2115417] Review Request: rapidyaml - A library to parse and emit YAML, and do it fast

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2115417



--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-4a61198054 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2115417
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1881793] Review Request: golang-github-emersion-ical - An iCalendar library for Go.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881793



--- Comment #5 from Maxwell G  ---
(In reply to proletarius101 from comment #4)
> Yes but how can I get sponsored?

Please see
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Joining_the_Package_Maintainers
and https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Packager_sponsor_policy/. I'd
start by sending a self-introduction to the devel list, as explained here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Joining_the_Package_Maintainers/#introduce_yourself.
You should also provide an updated specfile and source rpm. Your current links
are no longer accessible and the versions are outdated.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881793
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2060621] Review Request: -

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2060621

Jakub Kadlčík  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jkadl...@redhat.com




-- 
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2060621
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2060621] Review Request: -

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2060621

Jakub Kadlčík  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
 CC||jkadl...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík  ---
Hello Robert,
thank you very much for the package.

Overall, the spec file looks very good, but there is a couple of things that we
need to fix. 


> Spec URL: 
> 
> SRPM URL: 
> 

It's a bit unusual to have the < pointy brackets > there, but it's okay.
However,
the links need to point directly to the raw file / file download. In the case
of the spec, you want to go to the link you posted, click the "Raw" button, and
use that URL. For the SRPM, you want to "Copy link address" for the "Download"
button and use that.

There are tools that we use for the review, that download those files, so they
need direct links. 


> Summary: Python library for creating and drawing graphs and taking advantage 
> of graph properties

I think there is no such rule (packaging guidelines don't say so) but
generally, it is a good idea to make the summary at max 80 characters long.

When you imagine searching packages in GUI package managers or in DNF, they
typically show package name and summary on the same line, also people often
don't
have the window maximalized, so we want to display all the information in some
reasonable width. 

I would probably drop the "python library for", that's obvious from the package
name and change the verbs from -ing form to their simple form, e.g. "Create and
draw graphs and take ...". Just a suggestion, we can go with anything else that
works for you better.


> Prefix: %{_prefix}

Does some tutorial recommend this? I believe this is a historical thing. I
think
you can safely remove it now.


> %description
> Abstract is a Python library for creating and drawing graphs
> and taking advantage of graph properties.

This is basically a copy-pasted summary, we try to avoid that. Can you please
write a few sentences describing the package, what it is good for and what it
can do? There is a lot of text in the project README, I think we can condense
it
into a short description paragraph.


> %build
> %py3_build

The package builds correctly on your system because you already have some
python
dependencies installed, but if you try to build it in a minimal chroot (that's
how it is going to be done in Fedora), it fails with

+ %py3_build
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.GUgMDY: line 42: fg: no job control
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.GUgMDY (%build)

That's because of a missing BuildRequires for python3-devel.

It is a good idea to build your package in Copr or Mock, they will reveal all
the missing BuildRequires that you forgot.

Copr - https://docs.pagure.org/copr.copr/screenshots_tutorial.html

Mock -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_Mock_to_test_package_builds#How_do_I_use_Mock?
(Don't worry about the document length, using mock is quite simple. The only
important section for you is the "How do I use Mock?")


> %changelog
> * Sat Feb 26 2022 Robert Santos  and Ali Dia 
> 
> * - First abstract package

The changelog is in an unexpected format, please take a look here
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs

I haven't seen any changelog entries by two authors at the same time, but I
believe in giving people the credit that they deserve for their work. Maybe
let's
have only one of you in the changelog entry and appreciate the other in a
comment above? (each line that starts with # is a comment)

Also, the second line shouldn't start with *, see the link above.


---

Sorry for a lengthy comment, in fact, all of those things are easy-fixes and
overall the package looks really good.


-- 
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2060621
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2110814] Review Request: rs - Reshape a data array

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2110814



--- Comment #2 from Robert Scheck  ---
Updated package for SPDX expression in license.

Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/rs.spec
SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/rs-20200313-3.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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2110814
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2126943] Review Request: perl-Template-Plugin-CGI - Simple Template Toolkit plugin interfacing to the CGI.pm module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126943



--- Comment #16 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126943
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2127450] Review Request: haruna - video player built with Qt/QML and libmpv

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127450



--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/haruna


-- 
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127450
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2127314] Review Request: gnome-browser-connector - GNOME Shell browser connector

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314



--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-browser-connector


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2127549] Review Request: python-pytest-relaxed - unretiring the package

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127549



--- Comment #2 from Jiri Kucera  ---
Created attachment 1912406
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1912406=edit
source rpm

Added SRPM also as attachement.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127549
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2127549] Review Request: python-pytest-relaxed - unretiring the package

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127549



--- Comment #1 from Jiri Kucera  ---
Created attachment 1912405
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1912405=edit
spec file

Added spec file also as attachement.


-- 
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127549
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2127549] New: Review Request: python-pytest-relaxed - unretiring the package

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127549

Bug ID: 2127549
   Summary: Review Request: python-pytest-relaxed - unretiring the
package
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jkuc...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-lexicon/pull-request/3#comment-104303
SRPM URL:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3368/92053368/python-pytest-relaxed-1.1.5%5E20220502git000bba0e-1.fc38.src.rpm
Description: I want to unretire python-pytest-relaxed to enable tests in
python-invoke in order to catch all errors during unit tests (one of them
should be bz#2102736).
Fedora Account System Username: jkucera
Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=92053353


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127549
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2112639] Review Request: pt-astra-sans-fonts - Font that is metric compatible with Times New Roman

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112639

Benson Muite  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2022-09-16 16:12:06




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112639
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2112636] Review Request: pt-astra-serif-fonts - Font that is metric compatible with Times New Roman

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112636

Benson Muite  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
 Status|POST|CLOSED
Last Closed||2022-09-16 16:11:10




-- 
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2112636
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2057412] Review Request: perl-Authen-WebAuthn - Library to add Web Authentication support to server applications

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2057412

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Authen-WebAuthn-0.001-
   ||2.fc36




-- 
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2057412
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1967876] Review Request: perl-Statistics-ChiSquare - How well-distributed is your data?

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967876

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Statistics-ChiSquare-1
   ||.-2.el7
Last Closed||2022-09-16 15:42:30




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1967876
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1018859] Review Request: perl-Term-Clui - Term::Clui Perl module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018859

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version||perl-Term-Clui-1.68-3.fc18
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
  Flags|needinfo?(k.georgiou@atreid |
   |es.org.uk)  |
Last Closed||2022-09-16 15:39:18



--- Comment #9 from Petr Pisar  ---
A development of EPEL 6 has already been closed.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018859
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2127414] Review Request: pstreams-devel - POSIX Process Control in C++

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127414

Benson Muite  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
  Flags||fedora-review?
 CC||benson_mu...@emailplus.org
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|benson_mu...@emailplus.org




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127414
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1567819] Review Request: golang-github-pilebones-go-udev - Simple udev implementation in Golang

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1567819

Pawel Stolowski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
Last Closed||2022-09-16 15:00:56




-- 
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1567819
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2126943] Review Request: perl-Template-Plugin-CGI - Simple Template Toolkit plugin interfacing to the CGI.pm module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126943



--- Comment #15 from Petr Pisar  ---
It would make sense and I asked for it RPM developers some time ago. (I cannot
a link now.) But the idea was rejected with an explanation that there are
actually two kinds of run-time dependencies.

One is RPM package-level dependencies specified explicitly in a spec file.
Another is dependencies generated from the packaged files. The later
dependencies coming from a file are tight to the file in the RPM package
metadata. Why to distinguish the two? A catch is that when installing a
package, an rpm tool can actually exclude some files from the installation
(e.g. documentation or localization files). In that case a dependency tight to
the uninstalled file will actually disappear from the installed package because
the file simply is not installed. Hence RPM developers did not supported the
idea of removing the less specific dependencies.

Instead they recommended augmenting the dependency generator which scans the
files (perl-generators) and conveys the discovered file-level dependencies to
an rpmbuild tool. Alas, this idea was never implemented. (A spec file would
pass a list of more specific versions to the generator through positional
arguments defined with a macro.) Hence we ended up with filtering the
dependencies at build time.

Another approach could be minimizing the dependencies when gathering YUM
metadata from the RPM packages. That could be doable. At the end, both metadata
and DNF do not distinguish between the two kinds of dependencies. But I never
got to requesting this feature to createrepo_c tool which generates YUM
metadata.


-- 
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126943
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2126943] Review Request: perl-Template-Plugin-CGI - Simple Template Toolkit plugin interfacing to the CGI.pm module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126943



--- Comment #14 from Damian Wrobel  ---
(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #13)
> Thanks for polishing the package.

Thank you for the review.

> TODO: You can remove the underspecified, and now redundant, dependency on
> unversioned 'perl(CGI)' with this line placed after %{?perl_default_filter}
> line:
> 
> %global __requires_exclude
> %{?__requires_exclude:%{__requires_exclude}|}^perl\\(CGI\\)$
> 
> Removing underspecified dependencies helps to decrease a size of YUM
> repository metadata users needs to download on their systems.
> 

While I agree that it make sense to minimize the size of the YUM metadata,
shouldn't it be rather fixed in the rpm?

It seems to be quite generic issue:
$ rpm -qa --requires | uniq -cd | wc -l
689


-- 
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126943
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2120661] Review Request: dnf5 - package management library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120661

Miroslav Suchý  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||msu...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|msu...@redhat.com



--- Comment #3 from Miroslav Suchý  ---
Taking.
I do some preliminary checks and give Nicola comments in a video call.


-- 
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120661
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2127450] Review Request: haruna - video player built with Qt/QML and libmpv

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127450



--- Comment #4 from Vitaly Zaitsev  ---
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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "*No copyright* GNU
 General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* Creative Commons
 Attribution 4.0", "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU
 General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Library General Public
 License, Version 2.0", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU
 General Public License, Version 3", "Creative Commons Attribution
 4.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0",
 "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No
 copyright* GNU Library General Public License, Version 2.0". 49 files
 have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/haruna/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]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[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]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[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 30720 bytes in 3 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]: 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 =

Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: If the source package does not 

[Bug 2127450] Review Request: haruna - video player built with Qt/QML and libmpv

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127450

Vitaly Zaitsev  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Vitaly Zaitsev  ---
LGTM. 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127450
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2127450] Review Request: haruna - video player built with Qt/QML and libmpv

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127450



--- Comment #3 from Yaroslav Sidlovsky  ---
Thanks, new build with updated ffmpeg deps:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/zawertun/haruna/build/4840187/


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127450
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2127450] Review Request: haruna - video player built with Qt/QML and libmpv

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127450

Vitaly Zaitsev  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||vit...@easycoding.org
  Flags||fedora-review?
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vit...@easycoding.org



--- Comment #2 from Vitaly Zaitsev  ---
> BuildRequires: qt5-qtbase-private-devel

%{?_qt5:Requires: %{_qt5}%{?_isa} = %{_qt5_version}}

> BuildRequires: ffmpeg-free-devel

BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libavcodec)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libavdevice)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libavfilter)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libavformat)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libavutil)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libpostproc)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libswresample)
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libswscale)


-- 
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127450
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2126943] Review Request: perl-Template-Plugin-CGI - Simple Template Toolkit plugin interfacing to the CGI.pm module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126943

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #13 from Petr Pisar  ---
Thanks for polishing the package.

Changes in the spec file:

--- perl-Template-Plugin-CGI.spec.old   2022-09-15 19:42:47.0 +0200
+++ perl-Template-Plugin-CGI.spec   2022-09-16 14:02:03.0 +0200
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 Summary:   Simple Template Toolkit plugin interfacing to the CGI module
 Name:  perl-Template-Plugin-CGI
 Version:   3.101
-Release:   2%{?dist}
+Release:   3%{?dist}
 License:   (GPL-1.0-or-later OR Artistic-1.0-Perl) AND MIT
 URL:   https://metacpan.org/release/Template-Plugin-CGI
 Source:   
https://cpan.metacpan.org/modules/by-module/Template/Template-Plugin-CGI-%{version}.tar.gz
@@ -12,24 +12,21 @@
 BuildRequires: perl(blib)
 BuildRequires: perl(CGI) >= 4.44
 BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) >= 6.76
+BuildRequires: perl(File::Spec)
 BuildRequires: perl-generators
 BuildRequires: perl-interpreter
 BuildRequires: perl(IO::Handle)
 BuildRequires: perl(IPC::Open3)
 BuildRequires: perl(lib)
 BuildRequires: perl(strict)
+BuildRequires: perl(Template) >= 3.100
 BuildRequires: perl(Template::Plugin)
 BuildRequires: perl(Template::Test)
-BuildRequires: perl(Test2::Bundle::Extended)
-BuildRequires: perl(Test2::Plugin::NoWarnings)
-BuildRequires: perl(Test2::Suite)
-BuildRequires: perl(Test2::Tools::Explain)
-BuildRequires: perl(Test::Builder)
-BuildRequires: perl(Test::CPAN::Meta)
 BuildRequires: perl(Test::More)
 BuildRequires: perl(warnings)

-Requires:  perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo
$version))
+Requires:  perl(CGI) >= 4.44
+Requires:  perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`perl -V:version`"; echo $version))
 Conflicts: perl-Template-Toolkit < 3.010-5

 %{?perl_default_filter}
@@ -44,7 +41,7 @@


 %build
-%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor NO_PACKLIST=1 NO_PERLLOCAL=1
+perl Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor NO_PACKLIST=1 NO_PERLLOCAL=1
 %make_build


@@ -65,6 +62,9 @@


 %changelog
+* Fri Sep 16 2022 Damian Wrobel  - 3.101-3
+- Address comments from review process
+
 * Thu Sep 15 2022 Damian Wrobel  - 3.101-2
 - Address comments from review process


$ rpmlint perl-Template-Plugin-CGI.spec
../SRPMS/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI-3.101-3.fc38.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI-3.101-3.fc38.noarch.rpm 
== rpmlint session
starts =
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 3

perl-Template-Plugin-CGI.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL-1.0-or-later
perl-Template-Plugin-CGI.noarch: W: invalid-license Artistic-1.0-Perl
perl-Template-Plugin-CGI.src: W: invalid-license GPL-1.0-or-later
perl-Template-Plugin-CGI.src: W: invalid-license Artistic-1.0-Perl
=== 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4
warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ==
rpmlint is Ok.

$ rpm -q --requires -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI-3.101-3.fc38.noarch.rpm | sort -f |
uniq -c
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.36.0)
  1 perl(base)
  1 perl(CGI)
  1 perl(CGI) >= 4.44
  1 perl(strict)
  1 perl(Template::Plugin)
  1 perl(warnings)
  1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1
TODO: You can remove the underspecified, and now redundant, dependency on
unversioned 'perl(CGI)' with this line placed after %{?perl_default_filter}
line:

%global __requires_exclude
%{?__requires_exclude:%{__requires_exclude}|}^perl\\(CGI\\)$

Removing underspecified dependencies helps to decrease a size of YUM repository
metadata users needs to download on their systems.

$ resolvedeps rawhide
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI-3.101-3.fc38.noarch.rpm 
Binary dependencies are resolvable. Ok.

The package builds in Fedora 38
(https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=92077799). Ok.

Please consider correcting the TODO item before building this package.
Resolution: Package APROVED.


-- 
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126943
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 2126943] Review Request: perl-Template-Plugin-CGI - Simple Template Toolkit plugin interfacing to the CGI.pm module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126943



--- Comment #12 from Damian Wrobel  ---
(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #11)
> Now reviewing the second release of the spec file.
> 
> TODO: You can use a plain 'perl' command instead of macro '%{__perl}'
> (perl-Template-Plugin-CGI.spec:32, perl-Template-Plugin-CGI.spec:47).

Done.

> 
> FIX: Build-require 'perl(File::Spec)' (t/00-compile.t:23).
> FIX: Build-require 'perl(Template) >= 3.100' (t/cgi.t:21).
> It seems you forgot to add dependencies for the tests.

Done.

> 
> TODO: Do not build-require perl(Test2::Bundle::Extended),
> perl(Test2::Plugin::NoWarnings), perl(Test2::Suite),
> perl(Test2::Tools::Explain), perl(Test::Builder). They are probably
> copy-paste leftovers from separating the module by upstream. As I showed in
> my previous comment, depending on them does not bring any benefit. It only
> make a dependency tree of this packages larger and more prone to build
> failures (if the dependent package breaks). This in an example where
> upstream did a mistake.
> 

Done.

> FIX: Do not build-require perl(Test::CPAN::Meta). It's not used because a
> test never reaching that place (t/author-distmeta.t:12). This is the same
> case as for Test::NoTabs.

Done.

> 
> All tests pass. Ok.
> 
> $ rpmlint perl-Template-Plugin-CGI.spec
> ../SRPMS/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI-3.101-2.fc38.src.rpm
> ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI-3.101-2.fc38.noarch.rpm 
> == rpmlint session
> starts =
> rpmlint: 2.2.0
> configuration:
> /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
> /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
> /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
> /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
> /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
> /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
> checks: 32, packages: 3
> 
> perl-Template-Plugin-CGI.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL-1.0-or-later
> perl-Template-Plugin-CGI.noarch: W: invalid-license Artistic-1.0-Perl
> perl-Template-Plugin-CGI.src: W: invalid-license GPL-1.0-or-later
> perl-Template-Plugin-CGI.src: W: invalid-license Artistic-1.0-Perl
> === 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4
> warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ==
> rpmlint output is Ok.
> 
> $ rpm -q -lv -p
> ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI-3.101-2.fc38.noarch.rpm 
> drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Sep 16 11:13
> /usr/share/doc/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI
> -rw-r--r--1 root root  703 Apr 27 18:27
> /usr/share/doc/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI/Changes
> drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Sep 16 11:13
> /usr/share/licenses/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI
> -rw-r--r--1 root root 1069 Apr 27 18:27
> /usr/share/licenses/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI/LICENSE
> -r--r--r--1 root root 2062 Sep 16 11:13
> /usr/share/man/man3/Template::Plugin::CGI.3pm.gz
> drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Sep 16 11:13
> /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Template
> drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Sep 16 11:13
> /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Template/Plugin
> -r--r--r--1 root root 3549 Apr 27 18:27
> /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Template/Plugin/CGI.pm
> File layout and permissions are Ok.
> 
> $ rpm -q --requires -p
> ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI-3.101-2.fc38.noarch.rpm | sort -f |
> uniq -c
>   1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.36.0)
>   1 perl(base)
>   1 perl(CGI)
>   1 perl(strict)
>   1 perl(Template::Plugin)
>   1 perl(warnings)
>   1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
>   1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
>   1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
>   1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1
> TODO: Constrain 'perl(CGI)' run-time dependency with '>= 4.44' version
> (META.json:32). This can be done either by adding an explicit 'Requires:
> perl(CGI) >= 4.44' line to the spec file or patching a source code to 'use
> CGI 4.44;' at lib/Template/Plugin/CGI.pm:26.

Done (in .spec file).

> 
> $ rpm -q --provides -p
> ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI-3.101-2.fc38.noarch.rpm | sort -f |
> uniq -c
>   1 perl(Template::Plugin::CGI) = 3.101
>   1 perl-Template-Plugin-CGI = 3.101-2.fc38
> Binary provides are Ok.
> 
> $ rpm -q --conflicts -p
> ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI-3.101-2.fc38.noarch.rpm | sort -f |
> uniq -c
>   1 perl-Template-Toolkit < 3.010-5
> Binary conflicts are Ok.
> 
> $ resolvedeps rawhide
> ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI-3.101-2.fc38.noarch.rpm 
> Binary dependencies are resolvable. Ok.
> 
> The package builds in Fedora 38
> (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=92071243). Ok.
> 
> Otherwise, the package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines.
> Please correct the FIX items, consider correcting TODO 

[Bug 2127450] Review Request: haruna - video player built with Qt/QML and libmpv

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127450

Yaroslav Sidlovsky  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value



--- Comment #1 from Yaroslav Sidlovsky  ---
Test build for Rawhide:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/zawertun/haruna/build/4840087/


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127450
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2119983] Review Request: c-icap - An implementation of an ICAP server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119983



--- Comment #11 from Frank Crawford  ---
(In reply to Frank Crawford from comment #10)
> Note, I've added it as a issue in the C-ICAP Github repo that it would be
> good to move away from BDB.  Will see what comes from it.

And the upstream developers are going to look at it.  There comments were:

Lookup-tables based on lmdb and tdb can be easily implemented in c-icap.
The lmdb can be used as bdb replacement for
c-icap-modules/url_check/SquidGuard databases.
The Tokyo Cabinet is GPL lisensed, a module which implements lookup-tables
can be implemented in c-icap-modules package.

The first goal is to use lmdb instead of bdb.


-- 
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119983
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2127450] New: Review Request: haruna - video player built with Qt/QML and libmpv

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127450

Bug ID: 2127450
   Summary: Review Request: haruna - video player built with
Qt/QML and libmpv
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Severity: medium
  Priority: medium
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: zawer...@gmail.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Spec URL: https://zawertun.fedorapeople.org/haruna.spec
SRPM URL: https://zawertun.fedorapeople.org/haruna-0.9.1-1.fc36.src.rpm
Description: Open source video player built with Qt/QML and libmpv
Fedora Account System Username: zawertun


-- 
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127450
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2127314] Review Request: gnome-browser-connector - GNOME Shell browser connector

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314



--- Comment #2 from Kalev Lember  ---
Thanks a lot for the quick review! I agree with all your comments above. We
have to keep the "funky" things if we want to integrate with 3rd party
browsers.


> gnome-browser-connector.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided chrome-gnome-shell
> 
> ^ well, I'd say it's fine since we're splitting the original 
> chrome-gnome-shell
> package: we don't actually provide a full equivalent?

Yes, that, and also because there is nothing in Fedora that has 'Requires:
chrome-gnome-shell' -- if we had other packages requiring it, we'd need the
provides to avoid breaking dependencies in other packages.

But maybe it would make sense to add the provides to help people find the
renamed package? Not sure :)


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2126146] Review Request: conan - Open-source C/C++ package manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146



--- Comment #4 from Vitaly Zaitsev  ---
> The requirements.txt file is in the folder conans, not in the top level 
> folder.  Can you update the sed command in the spec file?

Fixed.

Spec URL: https://xvitaly.fedorapeople.org/for-review/conan.spec
SRPM URL:
https://xvitaly.fedorapeople.org/for-review/conan-2.0.0-0.1.beta3.fc36.src.rpm


-- 
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2127314] Review Request: gnome-browser-connector - GNOME Shell browser connector

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314

Timothée Floure  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+
 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #1 from Timothée Floure  ---
A few funky things (such as file in /etc/opt/) due to integration with what
looks like an ill-behaved third-party (looking at you Chrome) and splitting an
existing package (=> hence cannot really 'provide' the ancestor), but sane
altogether.

LGTM, many thanks for looking into this gnome extension connector issue.

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.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dbus-1,
 /usr/share/dbus-1/services
 ^ provided by dbus-common, which is required by dbus-broker, which is in
 turn required by the dbus package (which is a dpeendency of this package).
 This case seem common (e.g. see gnome-terminal package).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/chromium(chrome-gnome-
 shell, chromium, webextension-gsconnect, fedora-chromium-config),
 /etc/chromium/native-messaging-hosts(chromium, webextension-gsconnect,
 chrome-gnome-shell, webextension-token-signing),
 /etc/opt/chrome(chrome-remote-desktop, chrome-gnome-shell,
 webextension-gsconnect, fedora-chromium-config),
 /etc/opt/chrome/native-messaging-hosts(chrome-remote-desktop,
 webextension-gsconnect, chrome-gnome-shell, webextension-token-
 signing), /usr/lib64/mozilla/native-messaging-hosts(webextension-
 token-signing, mozilla-filesystem, textern, webextension-gsconnect,
 chrome-gnome-shell)
 ^ OK as per

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_file_and_directory_ownership
 "Packages must own all directories they put files in, except for: [...]
 any directories owned by other packages in your package’s natural
 dependency chain"... => mozilla-filesystem, fedora-chromium-config
[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./home/fnux/2127314-gnome-browser-connector/review.txt

[-]: 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.
[!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
^ /etc/opt is funky... but it looks like that's where chrome is looking for
config as it is provided so by upstream. It makes sense to ship them even
if Chrome is not a part of Fedora, as I suspect many users use it.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: 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 

[Bug 2127314] Review Request: gnome-browser-connector - GNOME Shell browser connector

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314

Timothée Floure  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?
 CC||timothee.flo...@posteo.net
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|timothee.flo...@posteo.net




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127314
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2126146] Review Request: conan - Open-source C/C++ package manager

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146



--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite  ---
The requirements.txt file is in the folder conans, not in the top level folder.
 Can you update the sed command in the spec file?


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126146
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2126943] Review Request: perl-Template-Plugin-CGI - Simple Template Toolkit plugin interfacing to the CGI.pm module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126943



--- Comment #11 from Petr Pisar  ---
Now reviewing the second release of the spec file.

TODO: You can use a plain 'perl' command instead of macro '%{__perl}'
(perl-Template-Plugin-CGI.spec:32, perl-Template-Plugin-CGI.spec:47).

FIX: Build-require 'perl(File::Spec)' (t/00-compile.t:23).
FIX: Build-require 'perl(Template) >= 3.100' (t/cgi.t:21).
It seems you forgot to add dependencies for the tests.

TODO: Do not build-require perl(Test2::Bundle::Extended),
perl(Test2::Plugin::NoWarnings), perl(Test2::Suite),
perl(Test2::Tools::Explain), perl(Test::Builder). They are probably copy-paste
leftovers from separating the module by upstream. As I showed in my previous
comment, depending on them does not bring any benefit. It only make a
dependency tree of this packages larger and more prone to build failures (if
the dependent package breaks). This in an example where upstream did a mistake.

FIX: Do not build-require perl(Test::CPAN::Meta). It's not used because a test
never reaching that place (t/author-distmeta.t:12). This is the same case as
for Test::NoTabs.

All tests pass. Ok.

$ rpmlint perl-Template-Plugin-CGI.spec
../SRPMS/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI-3.101-2.fc38.src.rpm
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI-3.101-2.fc38.noarch.rpm 
== rpmlint session
starts =
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 3

perl-Template-Plugin-CGI.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL-1.0-or-later
perl-Template-Plugin-CGI.noarch: W: invalid-license Artistic-1.0-Perl
perl-Template-Plugin-CGI.src: W: invalid-license GPL-1.0-or-later
perl-Template-Plugin-CGI.src: W: invalid-license Artistic-1.0-Perl
=== 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4
warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s ==
rpmlint output is Ok.

$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI-3.101-2.fc38.noarch.rpm 
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Sep 16 11:13
/usr/share/doc/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI
-rw-r--r--1 root root  703 Apr 27 18:27
/usr/share/doc/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI/Changes
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Sep 16 11:13
/usr/share/licenses/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI
-rw-r--r--1 root root 1069 Apr 27 18:27
/usr/share/licenses/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI/LICENSE
-r--r--r--1 root root 2062 Sep 16 11:13
/usr/share/man/man3/Template::Plugin::CGI.3pm.gz
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Sep 16 11:13
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Template
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Sep 16 11:13
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Template/Plugin
-r--r--r--1 root root 3549 Apr 27 18:27
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Template/Plugin/CGI.pm
File layout and permissions are Ok.

$ rpm -q --requires -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI-3.101-2.fc38.noarch.rpm | sort -f |
uniq -c
  1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.36.0)
  1 perl(base)
  1 perl(CGI)
  1 perl(strict)
  1 perl(Template::Plugin)
  1 perl(warnings)
  1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
  1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
  1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1
TODO: Constrain 'perl(CGI)' run-time dependency with '>= 4.44' version
(META.json:32). This can be done either by adding an explicit 'Requires:
perl(CGI) >= 4.44' line to the spec file or patching a source code to 'use CGI
4.44;' at lib/Template/Plugin/CGI.pm:26.

$ rpm -q --provides -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI-3.101-2.fc38.noarch.rpm | sort -f |
uniq -c
  1 perl(Template::Plugin::CGI) = 3.101
  1 perl-Template-Plugin-CGI = 3.101-2.fc38
Binary provides are Ok.

$ rpm -q --conflicts -p
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI-3.101-2.fc38.noarch.rpm | sort -f |
uniq -c
  1 perl-Template-Toolkit < 3.010-5
Binary conflicts are Ok.

$ resolvedeps rawhide
../RPMS/noarch/perl-Template-Plugin-CGI-3.101-2.fc38.noarch.rpm 
Binary dependencies are resolvable. Ok.

The package builds in Fedora 38
(https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=92071243). Ok.

Otherwise, the package is in line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines.
Please correct the FIX items, consider correcting TODO items, and provide an
updates spec file.


-- 
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126943
___
package-review mailing list -- 

[Bug 2127414] New: Review Request: pstreams-devel - POSIX Process Control in C++

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127414

Bug ID: 2127414
   Summary: Review Request: pstreams-devel - POSIX Process Control
in C++
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: Package Review
  Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Reporter: jwak...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



This package got retired (because I didn't see the announcements and didn't
step up to maintain it) and needs a review to be un-retired.

The spec is still on the f36 branch (and I just made a small fix to it
yesterday so it still builds on f37 and rawhide).

Spec URL: https://jwakely.fedorapeople.org/pstreams-devel.spec
SRPM URL: https://jwakely.fedorapeople.org/pstreams-devel-1.0.3-6.fc38.src.rpm

This is a tiny package consisting of a single C++ header, but useful to package
for Fedora so it can be easily installed in /usr/include. I'm the upstream
author and want to maintain it in Fedora.

There is a build in F36 already. It can be built for rawhide like so:

fedpkg clone pstreams-devel
cd pstreams-devel
git checkout f36
fedpkg --release=f38 mockbuild


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127414
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2126943] Review Request: perl-Template-Plugin-CGI - Simple Template Toolkit plugin interfacing to the CGI.pm module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126943



--- Comment #10 from Petr Pisar  ---
(In reply to Damian Wrobel from comment #6)
> (In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #1)
> 
> I'm in a process of fixing the issue and have the following doubts:
> 
> > FIX: Build-require 'perl(Template) >= 3.100' (t/cgi.t:21).
> This doesn't exist. dnf builddeps comlains:
> 
> No matching package to install: 'perl(Template) >= 3.100'
> 

It only exists in Fedora 38:

# dnf --quiet --enablerepo=f38-build repoquery --whatprovides 'perl(Template)
>= 3.100'
perl-Template-Toolkit-0:3.101-1.fc38.x86_64

> > FIX: Remove unused dependencies: perl(Carp), perl(CGI::Cookie),
> > perl(Template::Constants), perl(Test2::Bundle::Extended),
> > perl(Test2::Plugin::NoWarnings), perl(Test2::Suite),
> > perl(Test2::Tools::Explain), perl(Test::Builder), perl(Test::CPAN::Meta),
> > perl(Term::Cap), perl(Text::ParseWords).
> > Where did you get these dependencies from? I cannot see them used anywhere
> > in the code.
> 
> Test seems to require the following:
> # === Test Requires ===
> # 
> # Module Want Have
> # - - 
> # ExtUtils::MakeMaker any 7.64
> # File::Spec  any 3.84
> # File::Temp  any   0.2311
> # IO::Handle  any 1.48
> # IPC::Open3  any 1.22
> # Template  3.1003.101
> # Test2::Bundle::Extended any  missing <= you recommended to remove
> it
> # Test2::Plugin::NoWarnings   any  missing <= you recommended to remove
> it
> # Test2::Suiteany  missing <= you recommended to remove
> it
> # Test2::Tools::Explain   any  missing <= you recommended to remove
> it
> # Test::Builder   any 1.302191
> # Test::CPAN::Metaany  missing <= you recommended to remove
> it
> # Test::More  any 1.302191
> 
> So, It's probably good to keep them.

I think keeping them is not good. The modules are not used for anything except
of reporting their versions. E.g. look at Test2::Plugin::NoWarnings:

$ grep -Hnr Test2::Plugin::NoWarnings
cpanfile.plugins:11:requires "Test2::Plugin::NoWarnings" => 0;
Makefile.PL:29:"Test2::Plugin::NoWarnings" => 0,
Makefile.PL:52:  "Test2::Plugin::NoWarnings" => 0,
META.json:47:"Test2::Plugin::NoWarnings" : "0",
META.yml:13:  Test2::Plugin::NoWarnings: '0'
cpanfile:11:requires "Test2::Plugin::NoWarnings" => 0;
t/00-report-prereqs.dd:32:  
'Test2::Plugin::NoWarnings' => '0',

The first 6 locations are only a declaration of the dependency. A metadata. No
Code.
The last and the only location is an input for 00-report-prereqs.t which loads
the module only in order to print its version.
Therefore I conclude that it's better to remove them.

Theoretically it could be a plugin into tests whose mere presence causes its
load and use. But looking at its documentation
 reveals it's not
that case. To use it you need to explicitly load it in a test. And as you can
see in the grep output, the module is never loaded.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126943
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2126943] Review Request: perl-Template-Plugin-CGI - Simple Template Toolkit plugin interfacing to the CGI.pm module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126943



--- Comment #9 from Petr Pisar  ---
(In reply to Damian Wrobel from comment #5)
> For the reverse direction I'm getting:
> 
> [dw@dell Plugin]$ scandeps.pl -V -B -R CGI.pm 
> # Template/Plugin.pm [module]
> # Template/Plugin/CGI.pm [module]
> # base.pm [module]
> # strict.pm [module]
> # warnings.pm [module]
> #
> # Legend: [C]ore [X]ternal [S]ubmodule [?]NotOnCPAN
> 'Template::Plugin' => '0', #? # Template::Plugin::CGI
> 'base' => '0', #   C? # Template::Plugin::CGI
> 'strict'   => '0', #   C? # Template::Plugin::CGI
> 'warnings' => '0', #   C? # Template::Plugin::CGI
> 
Yet if you look at CGI.pm, line 26:

19  package Template::Plugin::CGI;
20  our $AUTHORITY = 'cpan:TODDR';
21  # ABSTRACT: Simple Template Toolkit plugin interfacing to the CGI.pm
module
22  $Template::Plugin::CGI::VERSION = '3.101';
23  use strict;
24  use warnings;
25  use base 'Template::Plugin';
→   26  use CGI;

There is a clear use of CGI module. And the tool misses it. I don't know why.
On my system it at least discovers it and than hides it. That's why I wrote
that the tool probably has bugs.

> While cpanspec gives me:
> 
> [dw@dell cpan]$ cpanspec Template-Plugin-CGI-3.101.tar.gz 
> [dw@dell cpan]$ grep '^BuildRequires:' perl-Template-Plugin-CGI.spec 
> BuildRequires:  perl(CGI) >= 4.44
> BuildRequires:  perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
> BuildRequires:  perl(File::Spec)
> BuildRequires:  perl(File::Temp)
> BuildRequires:  perl(IO::Handle)
> BuildRequires:  perl(IPC::Open3)
> BuildRequires:  perl(Template) >= 3.100
> BuildRequires:  perl(Test2::Bundle::Extended)
> BuildRequires:  perl(Test2::Plugin::NoWarnings)
> BuildRequires:  perl(Test2::Suite)
> BuildRequires:  perl(Test2::Tools::Explain)
> BuildRequires:  perl(Test::Builder)
> BuildRequires:  perl(Test::CPAN::Meta)
> BuildRequires:  perl(Test::More)
> 
Because cpanspec does not read the Perl source code at all. It only looks into
META.yaml (and maybe META.json) and spits out what's written there.

> Is there any authoritative method of automatically retriving list of BRs for
> a perl module a I could use?

It isn't. That's an inherent property of all Turing machine-complete
programming languages. You can only have tools which provide approximate
results and then you need a packager who use a common sense and experience to
judge the results.

The dynamic analysis scandeps does is actually pretty good, but to use is
seriously, one would need to instrument it more and apply on different pieces
of code (e.g. "perl Makefile.PL" and "make test"). In the past I started
developing a tool like that but I stopped for two reasons: First perl
interpreter's introspection facilities for loading modules is buggy and differs
from a perl version to version. It was impossible to make it reliable and
portable. Second reason was that at some level the introspection itself
influences perl interpreter and the analyzed code. It resulted into a garbage
output, or the analyzed code diverted from it's original code path, or the
analysis hit Perl's recursion limit and crashed or never halted.

My recommended way is reading metadata provided by upstream (META.json,
META.yaml, or Makefile.PL, or dist.ini). Then doing a static analysis with
tangerine tool. But you cannot blindly trust them. If it is feasible, it's good
to verify a usage of the declared/discovered dependencies by grepping, and
reading the source code. Also rewriting the module identifier in the source
code and then verifying that Makefile.PL && make test fails is sometimes
necessary. Also optional dependencies, especially in tests can be tricky.
Sometimes they do not do anything helpful (like pretty-formatting a debugging
output, or reporting module versions, or criticizing a code style) and it's
better to omit them.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126943
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2107818] Review Request: python-pdm-pep517 - Yet another PEP 517 backend

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107818



--- Comment #5 from c...@supakeen.com ---
Updated the license fields, 

1. SRPM here:
https://supakeen.fedorapeople.org/for-review/python-pdm-pep517-1.0.4-1.fc38.src.rpm
2. specfile here:
https://src.tty.cat/Fedora-Packages/python-pdm-pep517/raw/commit/fee26b6f0f9b3b37dee3c850126243acac7e5d65/python-pdm-pep517.spec

Is there anything I have missed? :)


-- 
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107818
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2085377] Review requested: libzpc - IBM Z specific hardware exploitation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2085377



--- Comment #36 from jschm...@de.ibm.com ---
- Requested ACL token
- fedpkg set-pagure-token x
- fedpkg request-repo libzpc 2085377

I changed the bugzilla title to include "Review requested:", because I first
got error msg
"Could not execute request_repo: Invalid title for this Bugzilla bug (no ":"
present)"

Now waiting until the request is approved:
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/47590


-- 
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2085377
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

needinfo canceled: [Bug 1362487] Review Request: arcanist - A command line interface to Phabricator

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review

Andreas Schneider  has canceled Package Review
's request for Andreas Schneider
's needinfo:
Bug 1362487: Review Request: arcanist - A command line interface to Phabricator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1362487
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 1362487] Review Request: arcanist - A command line interface to Phabricator

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1362487

Andreas Schneider  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(a...@redhat.com)   |




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1362487
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2126943] Review Request: perl-Template-Plugin-CGI - Simple Template Toolkit plugin interfacing to the CGI.pm module

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126943



--- Comment #8 from Petr Pisar  ---
(In reply to Damian Wrobel from comment #4)
> Here is what I see:
> 
> [dw@dell Plugin]$ scandeps.pl CGI.pm 
> 'CGI::Cookie' => '4.54',
> 'CGI::File::Temp' => '4.54',
> 'CGI::Util'   => '4.54',
> 'Carp'=> '1.52',
[...]
That's because you already have the dependencies installed. In other words, to
use scandeps.pl to report dependencies, you first need to install the
dependencies, and then the tool reports them. This is not helpful for
discovering new dependencies. That's only good for confirming already known
dependencies. E.g. if you uninstall 'perl(CGI::Cookie)', it will disappear from
the from the list. Moreover it mixes direct and indirect dependencies (=
dependencies of dependencies). We are interested only in the direct ones.


-- 
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2126943
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2085377] Review requested: libzpc - IBM Z specific hardware exploitation library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2085377

jschm...@de.ibm.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|libzpc - IBM Z specific |Review requested: libzpc -
   |hardware exploitation   |IBM Z specific hardware
   |library |exploitation library




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2085377
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2119983] Review Request: c-icap - An implementation of an ICAP server

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119983



--- Comment #10 from Frank Crawford  ---
Note, I've added it as a issue in the C-ICAP Github repo that it would be good
to move away from BDB.  Will see what comes from it.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119983
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2123954] Review Request: python-PyMunin3 - Python module for developing Munin Multigraph Plugins

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123954



--- Comment #12 from Sandro  ---
Any update on 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123954
___
package-review 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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue