Bug 1471557

Summary:	Review Request: python-olefile - Tools to analyze Microsoft OLE2 files
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Michal Ambroz <rebus>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	package-review
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2017-07-17 13:02:34 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	1471561

Description Michal Ambroz 2017-07-16 22:26:38 UTC

Spec URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/python-olefile.spec
SRPM URL: https://rebus.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/python-olefile-0.45-0.3.gite7eb5aa.fc25.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: rebus
Description: 
The olefile is a Python package from Philippe Lagadec (decalage2)
to parse, read and write Microsoft OLE2 files (also called Structured
Storage, Compound File Binary Format or Compound Document File
Format), such as Microsoft Office 97-2003 documents, vbaProject.bin
in MS Office 2007+ files, Image Composer and FlashPix files, Outlook
messages, StickyNotes, several Microscopy file formats,
McAfee antivirus quarantine files, etc.
See http://www.decalage.info/olefile for more info.

Comment 1 Michal Ambroz 2017-07-16 22:28:49 UTC

Koji build - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20564225

Comment 2 Michal Ambroz 2017-07-17 13:02:34 UTC

Oops - there already seems to be approved package in Fedora 26 although there doesn't seem to be any package review.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-olefile/

Comment 3 Michal Ambroz 2017-07-17 13:18:16 UTC

Oh there actually is a review - 1409648, just the search is somewhat hesitating to show it.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1409648 ***