[Bug 1558312] Review Request: etherwallet - Client-side tool for
interacting with the Ethereum network
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558312
--- Comment #5 from Rene Jr Purcell <rene.purcell(a)gmail.com> ---
Hi Robert, I should have updated those request. I've talked with few helping
folks on freenode after I posted those review request and they told me exactly
the same thing as your last comment. I then realised there a load of dependency
in there.. And I just can't build packages for all of those, if I remember it
was like 200 nodejs dependency..
So I don't know if things has changed since but if I really need to build
packages for every dependency than I will not have the time required to do this
unfortunately..
--
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
5 years
[Bug 917162] Review Request: salt-cloud - Generic cloud provisioning
tool
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=917162
Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED
CC| |lemenkov(a)gmail.com
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed| |2019-04-05 11:32:05
--- Comment #12 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov(a)gmail.com> ---
Salt-cloud is the part of the salt package. This one should be retired.
--
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
5 years
[Bug 1120552] Review Request: ghc-websockets - A sensible and clean
way to write WebSocket-capable servers in Haskell
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120552
Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
- Bump to 0.12.5.3
Package approved.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License". 33 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-websockets/review-ghc-
websockets/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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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 ghc-
websockets
[?]: 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.
[x]: %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]: 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:
[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1290240 bytes in /usr/share
[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.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ghc-websockets-0.12.5.2-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
ghc-websockets-devel-0.12.5.2-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
ghc-websockets-0.12.5.2-1.fc31.src.rpm
ghc-websockets.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https -> HTTP
ghc-websockets.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US github -> git
hub, git-hub, GitHub
ghc-websockets.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jaspervdj ->
jasper
ghc-websockets.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lhs -> ls, ohs,
lbs
ghc-websockets.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hs -> HS, sh, gs
ghc-websockets.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow
ghc-websockets.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whatwg -> what
ghc-websockets.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/libHSwebsockets-0.12.5.2-6Rvr4cIU6BTEJkbLdM5yYi-ghc8.4.4.so
ghc-websockets.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-websockets.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https -> HTTP
ghc-websockets.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US github -> git hub,
git-hub, GitHub
ghc-websockets.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jaspervdj -> jasper
ghc-websockets.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lhs -> ls, ohs, lbs
ghc-websockets.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hs -> HS, sh, gs
ghc-websockets.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow
ghc-websockets.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whatwg -> what
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 16 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
5 years
[Bug 1689397] New: Review Request: trellis - Lattice ECP5 FPGA
bitstream creation/analysis/programming tools
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689397
Bug ID: 1689397
Summary: Review Request: trellis - Lattice ECP5 FPGA bitstream
creation/analysis/programming tools
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: somlo(a)cmu.edu
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~somlo/trellis-rpm/trellis.spec
SRPM URL:
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~somlo/trellis-rpm/trellis-1.0-0.1.2019...
Description: Project Trellis enables a fully open-source flow for ECP5 FPGAs
using Yosys for Verilog synthesis and nextpnr for place and route. Project
Trellis provides the device database and tools for bitstream creation.
Fedora Account System Username: somlo
NOTE 1: rpmlint will complain about "nextpnr" being a spelling error -- it's
not, nextpnr is an FPGA place-and-route tool that uses trellis as a dependency.
NOTE 2: rpmlint will also issue "binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath" warnings on
several binaries shipping with the package. This is intentional, as they all
use a private, package-specific shared library installed as a subdirectory of
%{_libdir} (i.e., %{_libdir}%{name}/).
--
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
5 years