package-review May 2020

package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
953 discussions

[Bug 1570551] Review Request: pgcli - Postgres CLI with autocompletion and syntax highlighting
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 11 May '20

11 May '20

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1570551 Itamar Reis Peixoto <itamar(a)ispbrasil.com.br> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1833783 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1833783 [Bug 1833783] Review Request: python-pgspecial - Meta-commands handler for Postgres Database -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

1 0

[Bug 1570555] Review Request: python-pgspecial - Python implementation of postgres meta commands (backslash commands)
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 11 May '20

11 May '20

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1570555 Itamar Reis Peixoto <itamar(a)ispbrasil.com.br> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED CC| |itamar(a)ispbrasil.com.br Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed| |2020-05-11 19:25:59 --- Comment #3 from Itamar Reis Peixoto <itamar(a)ispbrasil.com.br> --- I saw this only now pgcli + pgspecial included in fedora, If you would like to help maintaining it let me know *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1833783 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

1 0

[Bug 1834466] New: Review Request: rust-protobuf-codegen-pure - Pure-rust codegen for protobuf using protobuf-parser crate
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 11 May '20

11 May '20

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834466 Bug ID: 1834466 Summary: Review Request: rust-protobuf-codegen-pure - Pure-rust codegen for protobuf using protobuf-parser crate Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: igor.raits(a)gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-protobuf-codegen-pu… SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-protobuf-codegen-pu… Description: Pure-rust codegen for protobuf using protobuf-parser crate WIP. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

1 3

[Bug 1570551] Review Request: pgcli - Postgres CLI with autocompletion and syntax highlighting
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 11 May '20

11 May '20

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1570551 Itamar Reis Peixoto <itamar(a)ispbrasil.com.br> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED CC| |itamar(a)ispbrasil.com.br Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed| |2020-05-11 17:08:59 --- Comment #12 from Itamar Reis Peixoto <itamar(a)ispbrasil.com.br> --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1833785 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

1 0

[Bug 1834231] New: Review Request: ursa-major - fix install failure on Fedora 32
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 11 May '20

11 May '20

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1834231 Bug ID: 1834231 Summary: Review Request: ursa-major - fix install failure on Fedora 32 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: yzhu(a)redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://github.com/azhuzhu/rpm-usra-major/blob/f32/ursa-major.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2926/44362926/ursa-major-0.4… Description: this PR is to fix the failure caused by the lack of deps - BZ#1834130 Fedora Account System Username: julian8628 PR: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ursa-major/pull-request/5 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

1 7

[Bug 1433784] Review Request: nodejs-nodemon - Simple monitor script for use during development of a node.js app
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 11 May '20

11 May '20

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433784 Zuzana Svetlikova <zsvetlik(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Zuzana Svetlikova <zsvetlik(a)redhat.com> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "Expat License ISC License", "ISC License", "*No copyright* Expat License", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Public domain". 962 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/kasicka/temp/1433784-nodejs-nodemon/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 17 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. 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

1 0

[Bug 810049] Review Request: netbeans-ide - Netbeans Integrated Development Environment (IDE)
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 11 May '20

11 May '20

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810049 leenaji <leenaji9024(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |leenaji9024(a)gmail.com --- Comment #116 from leenaji <leenaji9024(a)gmail.com> --- (In reply to Itamar Reis Peixoto from comment #1) > do you want me to review it ? https://maalsell.com/blog/ https://easypractice.in/ https://udaipurmirror.com/ http://code-kit.com/ https://kartora.com/ Target page for Udaipur -https://udaipurcallgirlsandescort.com Target page for Jaipur - https://udaipurcallgirlsandescort.com/jaipur-escorts.html Target page for jaisalmer - https://udaipurcallgirlsandescort.com/jaisalmer-escorts.html Target page for jodhpur - https://udaipurcallgirlsandescort.com/jodhpur-escorts-service.html Target for mount Abu - https://udaipurcallgirlsandescort.com/mount-abu-escorts.html http://hotescortsudaipur.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component

1 0

[Bug 1833618] New: Review Request: samurai - ninja-compatible build tool written in C
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 10 May '20

10 May '20

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1833618 Bug ID: 1833618 Summary: Review Request: samurai - ninja-compatible build tool written in C Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: i.gnatenko.brain(a)gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/samurai.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/samurai-1.1-1.fc33.src.r… Description: samurai is a ninja-compatible build tool written in C99 with a focus on simplicity, speed, and portability. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

1 3

[Bug 1576792] Review Request: python-webthing - HTTP Web Thing implementation
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 10 May '20

10 May '20

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576792 Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python3-webthing - HTTP Web |python-webthing - HTTP Web |Thing implementation |Thing implementation --- Comment #19 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com> --- SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/python-webthing.spec SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/python-webthing-0.13.0-1.fc32.src.rpmb koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44313044 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

1 0

[Bug 1338339] Review Request: openrave - Open Robotics Automation Virtual Environment
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 10 May '20

10 May '20

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1338339 Till Hofmann <thofmann(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed| |2020-05-10 13:45:25 --- Comment #29 from Till Hofmann <thofmann(a)fedoraproject.org> --- I found communication with upstream increasingly difficult, e.g., my patches to add compatibility with boost 1.6x [1] have been ignored without comment for over a year. I'm no longer interested in packaging openrave. [1] https://github.com/rdiankov/openrave/pull/625 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

1 0

← Newer
1
...
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
...
96
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

package-review May 2020