https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687396
Bug ID: 1687396
Summary: Review Request: rust-mac - Collection of great and
ubiqutitous macros
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/rust-mac.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-mac-0.1.1-1.fc31.sr…
Description:
A collection of great and ubiqutitous macros.
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1531950
Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |i.gnatenko.brain(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
*** Bug 1687443 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687443
Bug ID: 1687443
Summary: Review Request: rust-modifier - Fluid chaining APIs
for both mutable ownership types
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/rust-modifier.spec
SRPM URL:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-modifier-0.1.0-1.fc…
Description:
Fluid chaining APIs for both mutable ownership types.
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215261
Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |elyscape(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #14 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
*** Bug 1687619 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1687619
Bug ID: 1687619
Summary: Review Request: python-pytimeparse - Time expression
parser
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: elyscape(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://elyscape.fedorapeople.org/pkg-requests/python-pytimeparse.spec
SRPM URL:
http://elyscape.fedorapeople.org/pkg-requests/python-pytimeparse-1.1.8-1.fc…
Description:
A small Python module to parse various kinds of time expressions.
--
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=1534052
Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |POST
--
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=1187030
Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #19 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
Assuming:
Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/frieben/giza/fedora-rawhide…
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/frieben/giza/fedora-rawhide…
- No need for the non useful macros like this
%{__rm} → rm
- In order to avoid unintentional SONAME bump, please do not glob the major
soname version:
%{_libdir}/*.so.0*
- This is not needed anymore:
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets#Upgrade…
- add gcc as a BR
- add docs to %doc
- make setup quiet with "%setup -qn %{name}-%{version}" or just "%autosetup"
- I didn't get any issue with parallel building, did you deactivate it because
of race conditions? If not remove:
%global _smp_mflags -j1
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
- ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
Note: /sbin/ldconfig called in giza
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Removing_ldconfig_scriptlets
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Expat License",
"FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License",
"FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)", "GNU General Public
License". 71 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/giza/review-
giza/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 194560 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in giza ,
giza-debuginfo , giza-debugsource
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: giza-1.1.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
giza-devel-1.1.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
giza-debuginfo-1.1.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
giza-debugsource-1.1.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
giza-1.1.0-1.fc31.src.rpm
giza.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libgiza.so.0.1.0
exit(a)GLIBC_2.2.5
giza-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
giza.src:31: W: setup-not-quiet
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
--
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=866265
--- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
opentrep-0.07.1-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component