July 2020 - package-review - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 1830267] New: Review Request: python-nanoid - Unique string ID generator for Python

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830267 Bug ID: 1830267 Summary: Review Request: python-nanoid - Unique string ID generator for Python Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: mail(a)fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-nanoid.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-nanoid-2.0.0-1.fc31.sr... Project URL: https://github.com/puyuan/py-nanoid Description: Nano ID is a tiny, secure, URL-friendly, unique string ID generator for Python. It uses cryptographically strong random APIs and tests distribution of symbols and a larger alphabet than UUID (A-Za-z0-9_-). Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43976766 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python3-nanoid-2.0.0-1.fc31.noarch.rpm python3-nanoid.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Nano -> Nona, Nan, Kano python3-nanoid.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographically -> photographically, typographically, topographically 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint python-nanoid-2.0.0-1.fc31.src.rpm python-nanoid.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Nano -> Nona, Nan, Kano python-nanoid.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cryptographically -> photographically, typographically, topographically 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- 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

3 years, 9 months

1
13
0 / 0

[Bug 1836968] New: Review Request: sipvicious - Set of tools to audit SIP based VoIP systems

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1836968 Bug ID: 1836968 Summary: Review Request: sipvicious - Set of tools to audit SIP based VoIP systems Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: mail(a)fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/sipvicious.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/sipvicious-0.3.0-1.fc31.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/EnableSecurity/sipvicious Description: The SIPVicious OSS toolset consists of the following tools: - svmap - svwar - svcrack - svreport - svcrash Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44652463 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint sipvicious-0.3.0-1.fc31.src.rpm sipvicious.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolset -> tool set, tool-set, tool's sipvicious.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US svmap -> map's sipvicious.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US svwar -> sward sipvicious.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US svcrack -> crack sipvicious.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US svreport -> misreport sipvicious.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US svcrash -> crash 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. $ rpmlint *vicious-0.3.0-1.fc31.noarch.rpm sipvicious.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolset -> tool set, tool-set, tool's sipvicious.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US svmap -> map's sipvicious.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US svwar -> sward sipvicious.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US svcrack -> crack sipvicious.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US svreport -> misreport sipvicious.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US svcrash -> crash sipvicious.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sipvicious_svcrack sipvicious.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sipvicious_svcrash sipvicious.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sipvicious_svmap sipvicious.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sipvicious_svreport sipvicious.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sipvicious_svwar 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- 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

3 years, 9 months

1
12
0 / 0

[Bug 1266723] Review Request: rubygem-ncursesw - Ruby wrapper for the ncurses library, with wide character support

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266723 --- Comment #5 from Dan Callaghan <djc(a)djc.id.au> --- Thanks very much for the review! (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #4) > - Some examples are distributed under LDPL (Linux Documentation Project > License), could you add it in the License field and add a comment sying that > some example are LDPL licensed Nice catch, will fix this. > - Please notify upstream that they are using an obsolete FSF address in > their COPYING file (do not patch it yourself): > > rubygem-ncursesw.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address > /usr/share/licenses/rubygem-ncursesw/COPYING I posted a PR upstream: https://github.com/sup-heliotrope/ncursesw-ruby/pull/37 -- 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

3 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1361659] Re-Review Request: vdsm - Virtual Desktop Server Manager

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1361659 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(ppisar(a)redhat.com | |) --- Comment #36 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik(a)greysector.net> --- @Petr, why have you removed my assignment to this review request? -- 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

3 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1257410] Review Request: abcMIDI - ABC to/from MIDI conversion utilities

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1257410 Olivier Samyn <code(a)oleastre.be> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(i(a)cicku.me) | --- Comment #19 from Olivier Samyn <code(a)oleastre.be> --- I initially proposed in 2011 to revive and maintain the deprecated abcMIDI package; see BZ715127. That bug report was closed in favour if this one, and it seems the original reporter lost interest in becoming a maintainer. Since 2011, I started maintaining a copr version of that package which in time seemed more easy than become an official package maintainer, https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/oleastre/abcMIDI/ Now if someone would like to guide me how to get sponsorship, and how to become and official package maintainer, I would be happy to get this back in Fedora. I already read : - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group But those process seems to be quite long and I'm afraid to have to spend 2h-3h/day reading emails from 4 different mailing lists and review an undefined number of packages before I can get this simple one back in Fedora. So, help needed. -- 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

3 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

needinfo canceled: [Bug 1257410] Review Request: abcMIDI - ABC to/from MIDI conversion utilities

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Olivier Samyn <code(a)oleastre.be> has canceled Package Review <package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>'s request for Christopher Meng <i(a)cicku.me>'s needinfo: Bug 1257410: Review Request: abcMIDI - ABC to/from MIDI conversion utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1257410 --- Comment #19 from Olivier Samyn <code(a)oleastre.be> --- I initially proposed in 2011 to revive and maintain the deprecated abcMIDI package; see BZ715127. That bug report was closed in favour if this one, and it seems the original reporter lost interest in becoming a maintainer. Since 2011, I started maintaining a copr version of that package which in time seemed more easy than become an official package maintainer, https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/oleastre/abcMIDI/ Now if someone would like to guide me how to get sponsorship, and how to become and official package maintainer, I would be happy to get this back in Fedora. I already read : - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group But those process seems to be quite long and I'm afraid to have to spend 2h-3h/day reading emails from 4 different mailing lists and review an undefined number of packages before I can get this simple one back in Fedora. So, help needed.

3 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1266723] Review Request: rubygem-ncursesw - Ruby wrapper for the ncurses library, with wide character support

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266723 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+ --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> --- - Some examples are distributed under LDPL (Linux Documentation Project License), could you add it in the License field and add a comment sying that some example are LDPL licensed - Please notify upstream that they are using an obsolete FSF address in their COPYING file (do not patch it yourself): rubygem-ncursesw.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/rubygem-ncursesw/COPYING Package is approved, please fix the License field before import. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [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]: 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 is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2 or later)", "Expat License". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/rubygem- ncursesw/review-rubygem-ncursesw/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]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [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]: 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 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]: 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]: 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 Ruby: [x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform independent under %{gem_dir}. [x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage [x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated. [x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name} [x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel. [x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro. [x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. Ruby: [!]: Gem should use %gem_install macro. [!]: Test suite of the library should be run. [x]: Specfile should use macros from rubygem-devel package. Note: The specfile doesn't use these macros: %exclude %{gem_cache} [x]: Gem package should exclude cached Gem. [x]: gems should not require rubygems package ===== 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: rubygem-ncursesw-1.4.10-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm rubygem-ncursesw-doc-1.4.10-1.fc33.noarch.rpm rubygem-ncursesw-debuginfo-1.4.10-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm rubygem-ncursesw-debugsource-1.4.10-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm rubygem-ncursesw-1.4.10-1.fc33.src.rpm rubygem-ncursesw.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses rubygem-ncursesw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses rubygem-ncursesw.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/gems/ruby/ncursesw-1.4.10/gem.build_complete rubygem-ncursesw.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/rubygem-ncursesw/COPYING rubygem-ncursesw-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gems/gems/ncursesw-1.4.10/examples/example.rb 644 /usr/bin/env ruby rubygem-ncursesw-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gems/gems/ncursesw-1.4.10/examples/form.rb 644 /usr/bin/ruby rubygem-ncursesw-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gems/gems/ncursesw-1.4.10/examples/form2.rb 644 /usr/bin/ruby rubygem-ncursesw-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gems/gems/ncursesw-1.4.10/examples/form_get_wch.rb 644 /usr/bin/ruby rubygem-ncursesw-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gems/gems/ncursesw-1.4.10/examples/hello_ncurses.rb 644 /usr/bin/env ruby rubygem-ncursesw-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gems/gems/ncursesw-1.4.10/examples/rain.rb 644 /usr/bin/env ruby rubygem-ncursesw-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gems/gems/ncursesw-1.4.10/examples/read_line.rb 644 /usr/bin/env ruby rubygem-ncursesw-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gems/gems/ncursesw-1.4.10/examples/tclock.rb 644 /usr/bin/env ruby rubygem-ncursesw-doc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/gems/gems/ncursesw-1.4.10/examples/test_scanw.rb 644 /usr/bin/env ruby rubygem-ncursesw.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses rubygem-ncursesw.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 11 errors, 4 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

3 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1265759] Review Request: mingw-drmingw - Just-in-Time (JIT) debugger for MinGW

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265759 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+ --- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> --- 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

3 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1173656] Review Request: jags - Just Another Gibbs Sampler

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173656 --- Comment #4 from Mattia Verga <mattia.verga(a)protonmail.com> --- The mock build made by fedora-review fails: + cp -pr doc/manual/jags_developer_manual.pdf /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/jags-4.3.0-1.fc33.x86_64/usr/share/doc/jags-devel cp: cannot stat 'doc/manual/jags_developer_manual.pdf': No such file or directory + : + RPM_EC=0 ++ jobs -p + exit 0 error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/jags-4.3.0-1.fc33.x86_64/usr/share/doc/jags-devel/jags_developer_manual.pdf RPM build errors: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/jags-4.3.0-1.fc33.x86_64/usr/share/doc/jags-devel/jags_developer_manual.pdf Child return code was: 1 Also, the License tag value (GPL+) doesn't seem to be correct, the project homepage says it's GPLv2. -- 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

3 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1376511] Review Request: nexus - NeXus scientific data file format

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376511 Stuart Campbell <stuart(a)stuartcampbell.me> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(stuart@stuartcamp | |bell.me) | --- Comment #8 from Stuart Campbell <stuart(a)stuartcampbell.me> --- I will revisit and update the request shortly. -- 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

3 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

package-review July 2020