[Bug 1650943] Review Request: biosig4c++ - A software library for processing of biomedical signals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650943 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-5b15f1d369 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1515053] Review Request: asv - Airspeed Velocity: A simple Python history benchmarking tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1515053 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System --- asv-0.3.1-4.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-847891183f -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1650943] Review Request: biosig4c++ - A software library for processing of biomedical signals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650943 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-4b90c548eb -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1515053] Review Request: asv - Airspeed Velocity: A simple Python history benchmarking tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1515053 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System --- asv-0.3.1-4.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-f2b9bc7a14 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1652939] Review Request: blaze - An open-source, high-performance C++ math library for dense and sparse arithmetic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652939 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- blaze-3.4-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1652764] Review Request: python-spake2 - SPAKE2 password-authenticated key exchange
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652764 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-spake2-0.8-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1405546] Review Request: emacs-json-reformat - Reformatting tool for JSON
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1405546 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- emacs-json-mode-1.7.0-1.fc29, emacs-json-reformat-0.0.6-1.fc29, emacs-json-snatcher-1.0.0-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1405548] Review Request: emacs-json-mode - Major mode for editing JSON files with Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1405548 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- emacs-json-mode-1.7.0-1.fc29, emacs-json-reformat-0.0.6-1.fc29, emacs-json-snatcher-1.0.0-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1405547] Review Request: emacs-json-snatcher - Get the path to a JSON element in Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1405547 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- emacs-json-mode-1.7.0-1.fc29, emacs-json-reformat-0.0.6-1.fc29, emacs-json-snatcher-1.0.0-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1652636] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-gsconnect - KDE Connect implementation for GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652636 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- gnome-shell-extension-gsconnect-16-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1405546] Review Request: emacs-json-reformat - Reformatting tool for JSON
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1405546 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-12-06 21:14:06 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- emacs-json-mode-1.7.0-1.fc28, emacs-json-reformat-0.0.6-1.fc28, emacs-json-snatcher-1.0.0-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1405548] Review Request: emacs-json-mode - Major mode for editing JSON files with Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1405548 Bug 1405548 depends on bug 1405547, which changed state. Bug 1405547 Summary: Review Request: emacs-json-snatcher - Get the path to a JSON element in Emacs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1405547 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1652939] Review Request: blaze - An open-source, high-performance C++ math library for dense and sparse arithmetic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652939 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-12-06 21:14:24 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- blaze-3.4-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1652636] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-gsconnect - KDE Connect implementation for GNOME Shell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652636 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-12-06 21:14:16 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- gnome-shell-extension-gsconnect-16-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1652764] Review Request: python-spake2 - SPAKE2 password-authenticated key exchange
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652764 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-12-06 21:14:03 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- python-spake2-0.8-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1405548] Review Request: emacs-json-mode - Major mode for editing JSON files with Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1405548 Bug 1405548 depends on bug 1405546, which changed state. Bug 1405546 Summary: Review Request: emacs-json-reformat - Reformatting tool for JSON https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1405546 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1405548] Review Request: emacs-json-mode - Major mode for editing JSON files with Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1405548 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-12-06 21:14:13 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- emacs-json-mode-1.7.0-1.fc28, emacs-json-reformat-0.0.6-1.fc28, emacs-json-snatcher-1.0.0-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1405547] Review Request: emacs-json-snatcher - Get the path to a JSON element in Emacs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1405547 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2018-12-06 21:14:09 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- emacs-json-mode-1.7.0-1.fc28, emacs-json-reformat-0.0.6-1.fc28, emacs-json-snatcher-1.0.0-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1446005] Review Request: tikzit - Diagram editor for pgf/TikZ
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1446005 --- Comment #10 from W. Michael Petullo --- Some time later, 2.0 was released: Spec URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/tikzit.spec SRPM URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/tikzit-2.0-1.fc29.src.rpm Description: TikZiT is a graphical tool for rapidly creating an editing node-and-edge style graphs. It was originally created to aid in the typesetting of "dot" diagrams of interacting quantum observables, but can be used as a general graph editing program. Fedora Account System Username: mikep -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1656628] Review Request: python-readme-renderer - Safely render long_description/ README files in Warehouse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656628 Randy Barlow changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED Fixed In Version||python-readme-renderer-24.0 ||-1.fc30 --- Comment #5 from Randy Barlow --- Waiting on https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-bleach/pull-request/2 and https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-bleach/pull-request/3 to bring this to f29 and f28. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1655284] Review Request: libmawk- Embed awk scripting language in C apps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655284 --- Comment #4 from Alain V. --- Shall I request SCM myself for this new package ? -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1655197] Review Request: python-fido2 - Functionality for FIDO 2.0, including USB device communication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655197 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2018-12-06 18:07:25 --- Comment #5 from Orion Poplawski --- Checked in and built. Updates to come 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1656627] Review Request: fedora-repo-zdicts - Zstd dictionaries for Fedora repository metadata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656627 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Dieter --- Thanks so much for the review! Do you know if we need special permission to use fedora in the package 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1656628] Review Request: python-readme-renderer - Safely render long_description/ README files in Warehouse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656628 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-readme-renderer -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1656628] Review Request: python-readme-renderer - Safely render long_description/ README files in Warehouse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656628 --- Comment #3 from Randy Barlow --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/9150 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1562526] Review Request: libfullock - A Fast User Level LOCK (FULLOCK ) library for C and C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1562526 --- Comment #24 from Hiro Wakabayashi --- Hi, Robert-André Mauchin I see. Anyway, Thank you very much for your review! Hirotaka Wakabayashi -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1655798] Review Request: rust-crc32fast - Fast, SIMD-accelerated CRC32 (IEEE) checksum computation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655798 Josh Stone changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2018-12-06 15:44:16 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1656977] Review Request: rust-bytesize - Human-readable bytes representations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656977 Josh Stone changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2018-12-06 15:40:09 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1656628] Review Request: python-readme-renderer - Safely render long_description/ README files in Warehouse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656628 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jer...@jcline.org -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1656628] Review Request: python-readme-renderer - Safely render long_description/ README files in Warehouse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656628 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zebo...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Do you really need a docs subpackage for two files?? -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1656627] Review Request: fedora-repo-zdicts - Zstd dictionaries for Fedora repository metadata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656627
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
I was wondering if you were using dicts when I saw your zchunk proposal.
- Use install -p in your Makefile
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Unknown or generated". 3
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/fedora-repo-zdicts/review-fedora-repo-
zdicts/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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
[!]: 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
[Bug 1655785] Review Request: golang-github-ovh - Simple Go wrapper for the OVH API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655785 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1655679] Review Request: golang-github-namedotcom - Name.com API Go client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655679 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1655798] Review Request: rust-crc32fast - Fast, SIMD-accelerated CRC32 (IEEE) checksum computation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655798 --- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-crc32fast -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1656977] Review Request: rust-bytesize - Human-readable bytes representations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656977 --- Comment #3 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-bytesize -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1648595] Review Request: golang-github-pkg-term - Manages POSIX terminals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1648595 --- Comment #6 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-pkg-term -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1655664] Review Request: golang-github-timewasted-linode - Go library for interacting with the Linode v3 API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655664 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. Bump the package before import. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1649583] Review Request: golang-github-tv42-httpunix - Go library to talk HTTP over Unix domain sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649583 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-tv42-httpunix -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1655798] Review Request: rust-crc32fast - Fast, SIMD-accelerated CRC32 (IEEE) checksum computation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655798 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko --- Licensing is correct, package is generated using rust2rpm. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1656977] Review Request: rust-bytesize - Human-readable bytes representations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656977 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko --- Licensing is correct, package is generated using rust2rpm. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1655423] Review Request: php-sebastian-environment4 - Handle HHVM/ PHP environments
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655423
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
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: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "*No copyright* BSD
3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or generated". 13 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/php-sebastian-environment4/review-php-
sebastian-environment4/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/php/SebastianBergmann(php-phpunit-Version)
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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]:
[Bug 1655197] Review Request: python-fido2 - Functionality for FIDO 2.0, including USB device communication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655197 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-fido2 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1649583] Review Request: golang-github-tv42-httpunix - Go library to talk HTTP over Unix domain sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649583 --- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Thanks Carl! -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1653481] Review Request: white_dune - 3D modeller/animation tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1653481
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Not needed:
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%defattr(-,root,root)
BuildRoot: /var/tmp/%{name}buildroot
- I don't think you *require* all of this to work:
Requires: rcs
Requires: firefox
Requires: kolourpaint
Requires: audacity
Requires: lxterminal
Requires: ImageMagick
Requires: aqsis-core
Requires: bitstream-vera-sans-fonts
- COPYING.txt must be installed with %license not %doc.
- Use extraver like this:
%global extraver pl1204
Release: 1.%{extraver}%{?dist}
- Fix the %changelog
You also need to be sponsored, please read
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
--
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1562526] Review Request: libfullock - A Fast User Level LOCK (FULLOCK ) library for C and C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1562526 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #23 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Ok package is approved. You still need to find a sponsor though. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1655197] Review Request: python-fido2 - Functionality for FIDO 2.0, including USB device communication
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655197 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1654881] Review Request: rsc-pdf - PDF Reader for Go
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654881 --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Version-Release info is erroneous in the %changelog entry: * Wed Nov 28 2018 Derek Parker - 0.1.1-1 - Don't mix tabs and spaces: Version:0.1.1 - SPEC file should be named golang-rsc-pdf.spec -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1654324] Review Request: grpc - Modern, open source, high-performance remote procedure call (RPC) framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654324 --- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/grpc -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1654835] Review Request: python-google-auth - Add python-google-auth to EPEL 7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654835
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
For EPEL, you should use python%{python3_pkgversion} instead of python3.
For Fedora use the latest version.
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated",
"Apache License (v2.0)". 52 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-google-
auth/review-python-google-auth/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]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[?]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary
[Bug 1649552] Review Request: jmc - Profiling and diagnostics tool for Java applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649552 --- Comment #16 from Severin Gehwolf --- For reference these are the eclipse packages, eclipse dependencies come from: eclipse-ecf-core eclipse-emf-core eclipse-equinox-osgi eclipse-platform eclipse-swt If it really turns out that upgrading eclipse (and not jmc) breaks jmc, then RPM triggers could be considered to "fix-up" symlinks: http://ftp.rpm.org/api/4.4.2.2/triggers.html For that matter it might make sense to install symlink_libs.sh so it'll be available to be called by a trigger. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1656977] New: Review Request: rust-bytesize - Human-readable bytes representations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656977 Bug ID: 1656977 Summary: Review Request: rust-bytesize - Human-readable bytes representations Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jist...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://jistone.fedorapeople.org/review//rust-bytesize.spec SRPM URL: http://jistone.fedorapeople.org/review//rust-bytesize-1.0.0-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: A utility for human-readable bytes representations. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1656977] Review Request: rust-bytesize - Human-readable bytes representations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656977 --- Comment #1 from Josh Stone --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31316778 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1655421] Review Request: hw-probe - A tool to check operability of computer hardware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655421 --- Comment #17 from Jason Tibbitts --- Well, he said that he would review it, not that he had approved it. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1369464] Review Request: rubygem-proxifier - Proxifier is a gem to force ruby to use a proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369464 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2018-12-06 14:01:44 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1654324] Review Request: grpc - Modern, open source, high-performance remote procedure call (RPC) framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654324 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Please bump to 1.17.0. 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1654689] Review Request: yubihsm-shell - Tools to interact with YubiHSM 2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654689
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
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]: 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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[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: "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "OpenSSL License",
"Unknown or generated", "Apache License (v2.0)". 32 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
/yubihsm-shell/review-yubihsm-shell/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib64/pkcs11(opensc, p11
-kit-trust, coolkey)
[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.
[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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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
[Bug 1654689] Review Request: yubihsm-shell - Tools to interact with YubiHSM 2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654689 --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- (In reply to Jakub Jelen from comment #3) > Thank you for the comments and improvements. I will submit updated package > soon. Can you point me where the specific requirements are listed? I was not > able to find a note about (even though I agree that this requirement makes > sense): > > > - Globbing the major soname version of libraries is now forbidden to avoid > > unintentional soname bump, be more precise instead > You can find info here: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/784 https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1654876] Review Request: zsh-autosuggestions - Fish-like autosuggestions for Zsh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654876
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Include the Release info in your %changelog entry:
* Thu Nov 29 2018 Dillen Meijboom - 0.5.0-1
Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 55 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
/zsh-autosuggestions/review-zsh-autosuggestions/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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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
[Bug 1654876] Review Request: zsh-autosuggestions - Fish-like autosuggestions for Zsh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654876 --- Comment #9 from Dillen Meijboom --- Allright. New Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dmeijboom/Zsh/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00834725-zsh-autosuggestions/zsh-autosuggestions.spec New SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dmeijboom/Zsh/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00834725-zsh-autosuggestions/zsh-autosuggestions-0.5.0-1.fc30.src.rpm -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1648728] Review Request: python-progressbar2 - A Progressbar library to provide visual progress to long running operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1648728 Petr Viktorin changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(christof@damian.n | |et) | |needinfo?(tuanta@iwayvietna | |m.com) | |needinfo?(pviktori@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #20 from Petr Viktorin --- Hello, and apologies for the delay. If the progressbar and progressbar2 upstreams diverge, we'll be in quite a tough spot. But for now, it seems progressbar2 is better maintained, and wants to keep compatibility with the original. So, let's replace python3-progressbar by python3-progressbar2. The python2 package is going away soon though; let's keep that as it is. Ankur, if it works for you, can you: - post a heads-up to Fedora-devel, CCing maintainers of the dependent packages and the other progressbar admins (tuanta, cdamian), saying what the plan is - remove the python2-progressbar2 subpackage entirely from the spec (this should simplify it quite a bit!) - make python3-progressbar2 replace python3-progressbar (using versioned Obsoletes & Provides) - get it approved - please, add me as a co-maintainer - let me know so I can remove the python3-progressbar package -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1656533] Review Request: perl-Types-DateTime - Type constraints and coercions for datetime objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656533 --- Comment #2 from Xavier Bachelot --- Wow, I don't know how I let so much errors get through... All FIX addressed. I want the spec to be compatible with EPEL, so I didn't address the TODOs. Spec URL: https://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/perl-Types-DateTime.spec SRPM URL: https://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SRPMS/perl-Types-DateTime-0.002-2.fc29.src.rpm Thanks for the review. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1651407] Review Request: python-wxnatpy - wxnatpy is a wxPython widget which allows users to browse the contents of a XNAT repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1651407
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
Package is good. XXX APPROVED XXX
Please wait for progressbar before building, though, and then all three can be
pushed as one update in bodhi to ensure the dep chain is correct.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/asinha/1651407
-python-wxnatpy/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
^ Please re-download the tar and re-generate the srpm. This shouldnt happen.
- Requires are incomplete. They are mentioned in requirements.txt, and the
generator has not picked them up. Please include them manually.
This package requires python-xnat to run (not just for build/test), so please
update the requirements before you build. If xnat requires progressbar2 to
*run*, and so does wxnatpy, you'll have to wait for it to be built and included
in the repos before you can proceed with these two.
- Please shorten the summary and linewrap the description.
- %version is not needed in the URL field in the spec.
= 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: "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated".
15 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/asinha/1651407-python-wxnatpy/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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
^ Incomplete. Noted later.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: 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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
[Bug 1652305] Review Request: dav1d - AV1 cross-platform Decoder
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1652305 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) | --- Comment #7 from Tom "spot" Callaway --- No problems with what I see here. Lifting FE-Legal. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1648728] Review Request: python-progressbar2 - A Progressbar library to provide visual progress to long running operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1648728 --- Comment #19 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Ping progressbar maintainers: thoughts? Zbigniew, could you please re-approve the package and let me import it? If the progressbar maintainers decide to use progressbar2 in the future, I can obsolete the package. This is holding up other packages that use progressbar2. Cheers, Ankur -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1654876] Review Request: zsh-autosuggestions - Fish-like autosuggestions for Zsh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654876 --- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Yeah you could drop the test, the package is simple enough I guess. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1650943] Review Request: biosig4c++ - A software library for processing of biomedical signals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650943 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-4b90c548eb -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1650943] Review Request: biosig4c++ - A software library for processing of biomedical signals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1650943 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- biosig4c++-1.9.3-1.git94296e0.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-5b15f1d369 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1656533] Review Request: perl-Types-DateTime - Type constraints and coercions for datetime objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656533
--- Comment #1 from Jitka Plesnikova ---
Source file is ok
Summary is ok
FIX: License should be '(GPL+ or Artistic) and Public Domain', because
files COPYRIGHT and CREDITS have license Public Domain,
See Types-DateTime-0.002/COPYRIGHT line 13-17.
Description is ok
Source0 is ok
FIX: Please update URL to use link to metacpan.org
https://metacpan.org/release/Types-DateTime/
All tests passed
BuildRequires
FIX: Please add following missing build-requires:
- coreutils - spec file: line 34
- findutils - spec file: line 34
- make - spec file: line 32
- perl-generators
- perl-interpreter - spec file: line 28
- perl(Moose) >= 2.06 - t/02mxtdt.t:31
- perl(Moose::Util::TypeConstraints) - t/02mxtdt.t:26
- perl(strict) - Makefile.PL:1, lib/Types/DateTime.pm:2
- perl(Type::Library) - lib/Types/DateTime.pm:17
- perl(Type::Utils) - lib/Types/DateTime.pm:22
- perl(Type::Standard) - lib/Types/DateTime.pm:21
- perl(warnings) - lib/Types/DateTime.pm:3
- optional - perl(Locale::Maketext) - t/02mxtdt.t:128
$ rpm -qp --requires perl-Types-DateTime-0.002-1.fc30.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq
-c
1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.28.1)
1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
perl run-time dependencies are missing.
$ rpm -qp --provides perl-Types-DateTime-0.002-1.fc30.noarch.rpm | sort | uniq
-c
1 perl-Types-DateTime = 0.002-1.fc30
Binary provides are not complete
FIX: Provides and run-time requires were not added due to missing
build-requires perl-generators.
$ rpmlint ./perl-Types-DateTime*
perl-Types-DateTime.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) coercions ->
coercion, coercion's, coercion s
perl-Types-DateTime.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) coercions ->
coercion, coercion's, coercion s
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint is ok
If you want to add the package to EPEL, please ignore these two TODO
TODO: The easier way to remove .packlist is used NO_PACKLIST option,
which is part of perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) >= 6.76. It can be
used in all Fedoras. The command is
%{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor NO_PACKLIST=1
TODO: Remove the deleting empty directories in %install section. This is
default behavior for Fedoras.
Please correct all 'FIX' issues and consider fixing 'TODO' items and
provide new spec file.
Not 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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1655421] Review Request: hw-probe - A tool to check operability of computer hardware
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655421 Michal Schorm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msch...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(i.gnatenko.brain@ ||gmail.com) -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1651407] Review Request: python-wxnatpy - wxnatpy is a wxPython widget which allows users to browse the contents of a XNAT repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1651407 --- Comment #3 from Luis Bazan --- the spec fixed only for py3 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1288610] Review Request: python-lazy-object-proxy - A fast and thorough lazy object proxy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288610 Petr Viktorin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||pvikt...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2018-12-06 09:52:53 --- Comment #7 from Petr Viktorin --- This is in Fedora for a while. Let me close the 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 515752] Review Request: python-soaplib - python library for creating SOAP services
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=515752 Petr Viktorin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||pvikt...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2018-12-06 09:50:55 --- Comment #34 from Petr Viktorin --- This package got into Fedora, but is not retired after about 8 years. It's way past time to close the review request. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1095878] Review Request: python-frozen-flask - freezes a Flask application into a set of static files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1095878 Petr Viktorin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||pvikt...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2018-12-06 09:41:57 --- Comment #6 from Petr Viktorin --- python-frozen-flask is in Fedora. I assume this bug was just forgotten, so I'm closing it. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1649552] Review Request: jmc - Profiling and diagnostics tool for Java applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649552 --- Comment #15 from Severin Gehwolf --- With the patch from comment 14 the jmc provides only have these questionable ones: osgi(org.eclipse.equinox.launcher) = 1.4.0 osgi(org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.gtk.linux.x86_64) = 1.1.551 osgi(org.eclipse.equinox.security.linux.x86_64) = 1.0.100 osgi(org.eclipse.swt.gtk.linux.x86_64) = 3.106.3 That is, the following are no longer there (as compared to comment 11) because they're properly symlinked: osgi(org.apache.batik.xml) = 1.10.0 osgi(org.apache.lucene.misc) = 6.1.0 The remaining Eclipse provides should probably be explicitly filtered: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering#Filtering_provides_and_requires_after_scanning -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1656392] Review Request: perl-JSON-Color - Encode to colored JSON
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656392 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-JSON-Color-0.12-1.fc30 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2018-12-06 09:21:58 --- Comment #5 from Jitka Plesnikova --- Thank you for the review and the repository. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1649552] Review Request: jmc - Profiling and diagnostics tool for Java applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649552 --- Comment #14 from Severin Gehwolf --- Created attachment 1512155 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1512155=edit Patch to make symlinking of libs more robust I've used this patch so as to build a version of JMC which runs on F28. The idea is to a) rely on xmvn-subst for system deps b) after xmvn-subst has replaced java deps with symlinks, run a sym link script to link to eclipse bits -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1649552] Review Request: jmc - Profiling and diagnostics tool for Java applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649552 --- Comment #13 from Severin Gehwolf --- (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #12) > Created attachment 1512147 [details] > patch for config.ini so that Eclipse Oxygen works with JDK 11 > > Followed advise from: > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=533390#c22 Without that patch starting jmc on Eclipse Oxygen with -vm /usr/lib/jvm/java-11-openjdk/bin/java fails with: !ENTRY org.eclipse.osgi 4 0 2018-12-06 15:10:57.003 !MESSAGE Application error !STACK 1 org.eclipse.e4.core.di.InjectionException: java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: javax/annotation/PostConstruct at org.eclipse.e4.core.internal.di.InjectorImpl.internalMake(InjectorImpl.java:410) at org.eclipse.e4.core.internal.di.InjectorImpl.make(InjectorImpl.java:318) at org.eclipse.e4.core.contexts.ContextInjectionFactory.make(ContextInjectionFactory.java:162) at org.eclipse.e4.ui.internal.workbench.swt.E4Application.createDefaultHeadlessContext(E4Application.java:491) at org.eclipse.e4.ui.internal.workbench.swt.E4Application.createDefaultContext(E4Application.java:505) at org.eclipse.e4.ui.internal.workbench.swt.E4Application.createE4Workbench(E4Application.java:204) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.lambda$3(Workbench.java:614) at org.eclipse.core.databinding.observable.Realm.runWithDefault(Realm.java:336) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.createAndRunWorkbench(Workbench.java:594) at org.eclipse.ui.PlatformUI.createAndRunWorkbench(PlatformUI.java:148) at org.openjdk.jmc.rcp.application.Application.start(Application.java:64) at org.eclipse.equinox.internal.app.EclipseAppHandle.run(EclipseAppHandle.java:196) at org.eclipse.core.runtime.internal.adaptor.EclipseAppLauncher.runApplication(EclipseAppLauncher.java:134) at org.eclipse.core.runtime.internal.adaptor.EclipseAppLauncher.start(EclipseAppLauncher.java:104) at org.eclipse.core.runtime.adaptor.EclipseStarter.run(EclipseStarter.java:388) at org.eclipse.core.runtime.adaptor.EclipseStarter.run(EclipseStarter.java:243) at java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) at java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62) at java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43) at java.base/java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:566) at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.invokeFramework(Main.java:653) at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.basicRun(Main.java:590) at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.run(Main.java:1499) at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.main(Main.java:1472) Caused by: java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: javax/annotation/PostConstruct at org.eclipse.e4.core.internal.di.InjectorImpl.inject(InjectorImpl.java:124) at org.eclipse.e4.core.internal.di.InjectorImpl.internalMake(InjectorImpl.java:399) ... 23 more Caused by: java.lang.ClassNotFoundException: javax.annotation.PostConstruct cannot be found by org.eclipse.e4.core.di_1.6.100.v20180409-1128 at org.eclipse.osgi.internal.loader.BundleLoader.findClassInternal(BundleLoader.java:433) at org.eclipse.osgi.internal.loader.BundleLoader.findClass(BundleLoader.java:395) at org.eclipse.osgi.internal.loader.BundleLoader.findClass(BundleLoader.java:387) at org.eclipse.osgi.internal.loader.ModuleClassLoader.loadClass(ModuleClassLoader.java:150) at java.base/java.lang.ClassLoader.loadClass(ClassLoader.java:521) ... 25 more -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1656392] Review Request: perl-JSON-Color - Encode to colored JSON
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656392 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-JSON-Color -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1649552] Review Request: jmc - Profiling and diagnostics tool for Java applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649552 --- Comment #12 from Severin Gehwolf --- Created attachment 1512147 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1512147=edit patch for config.ini so that Eclipse Oxygen works with JDK 11 Followed advise from: https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=533390#c22 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1649552] Review Request: jmc - Profiling and diagnostics tool for Java applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649552 --- Comment #11 from Severin Gehwolf --- Some of the provides from jmc look wrong: $ rpm -q --provides jmc application() application(jmc.desktop) jmc = 7.0.0-0.20181130hg1ddf3baa4e26.fc28 jmc(x86-64) = 7.0.0-0.20181130hg1ddf3baa4e26.fc28 osgi(org.apache.batik.xml) = 1.10.0 osgi(org.apache.lucene.misc) = 6.1.0 osgi(org.eclipse.equinox.launcher) = 1.4.0 osgi(org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.gtk.linux.x86_64) = 1.1.551 osgi(org.eclipse.equinox.security.linux.x86_64) = 1.0.100 osgi(org.eclipse.swt.gtk.linux.x86_64) = 3.106.3 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.alert) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.attach) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.browser) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.browser.attach) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.browser.jdp) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.commands) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.console.persistence) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.console.ui) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.console.ui.diagnostic) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.console.ui.mbeanbrowser) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.console.ui.notification) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.docs) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder.configuration) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder.controlpanel.ui) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder.controlpanel.ui.configuration) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder.rules.extensionprovider) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder.ui) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.greychart) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.greychart.ui) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.jdp) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.osgi.extension) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.rcp.application) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.rcp.intro) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.rjmx) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.rjmx.ext) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.rjmx.services.jfr) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.rjmx.ui) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.ui) = 7.0.0 osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.ui.common) = 7.0.0 In particular these: osgi(org.apache.batik.xml) = 1.10.0 osgi(org.apache.lucene.misc) = 6.1.0 osgi(org.eclipse.equinox.launcher) = 1.4.0 osgi(org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.gtk.linux.x86_64) = 1.1.551 osgi(org.eclipse.equinox.security.linux.x86_64) = 1.0.100 osgi(org.eclipse.swt.gtk.linux.x86_64) = 3.106.3 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1649552] Review Request: jmc - Profiling and diagnostics tool for Java applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649552 --- Comment #10 from Severin Gehwolf --- For my F28 rebuild of jmc it doesn't start, because of broken critical symlinks: for i in $(find /usr/lib64/jmc/plugins/ -xtype l); do file $i; done /usr/lib64/jmc/plugins/org.apache.felix.scr_2.0.14.jar: broken symbolic link to /usr/lib/eclipse/plugins/org.apache.felix.scr_2.0.14.jar /usr/lib64/jmc/plugins/org.apache.batik.util_1.10.0.jar: broken symbolic link to /usr/lib/eclipse/plugins/org.apache.batik.util_1.10.0.jar /usr/lib64/jmc/plugins/org.eclipse.jetty.http_9.4.11.v20180605.jar: broken symbolic link to /usr/lib/eclipse/plugins/org.eclipse.jetty.http_9.4.11.v20180605.jar /usr/lib64/jmc/plugins/org.apache.batik.css_1.10.0.jar: broken symbolic link to /usr/lib/eclipse/plugins/org.apache.batik.css_1.10.0.jar /usr/lib64/jmc/plugins/org.apache.batik.util.gui_1.10.0.jar: broken symbolic link to /usr/lib/eclipse/plugins/org.apache.batik.util.gui_1.10.0.jar /usr/lib64/jmc/plugins/org.eclipse.jetty.servlet_9.4.11.v20180605.jar: broken symbolic link to /usr/lib/eclipse/plugins/org.eclipse.jetty.servlet_9.4.11.v20180605.jar /usr/lib64/jmc/plugins/org.eclipse.jetty.security_9.4.11.v20180605.jar: broken symbolic link to /usr/lib/eclipse/plugins/org.eclipse.jetty.security_9.4.11.v20180605.jar /usr/lib64/jmc/plugins/org.eclipse.jetty.util_9.4.11.v20180605.jar: broken symbolic link to /usr/lib/eclipse/plugins/org.eclipse.jetty.util_9.4.11.v20180605.jar /usr/lib64/jmc/plugins/org.eclipse.jetty.continuation_9.4.11.v20180605.jar: broken symbolic link to /usr/lib/eclipse/plugins/org.eclipse.jetty.continuation_9.4.11.v20180605.jar /usr/lib64/jmc/plugins/org.eclipse.jetty.server_9.4.11.v20180605.jar: broken symbolic link to /usr/lib/eclipse/plugins/org.eclipse.jetty.server_9.4.11.v20180605.jar /usr/lib64/jmc/plugins/org.eclipse.jetty.io_9.4.11.v20180605.jar: broken symbolic link to /usr/lib/eclipse/plugins/org.eclipse.jetty.io_9.4.11.v20180605.jar This probably has to do with me using a custom built eclipse with the above PR. It would suggest that every time eclipse gets updated those symlinks would get potentially broken. I'll do some more digging. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1636111] Review Request: glyr - Glyr is a music related metadata searchengine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1636111 --- Comment #31 from Matias De lellis --- Do not apologize. We all have our obligations. I am more than grateful you took the review.. =) -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1656533] Review Request: perl-Types-DateTime - Type constraints and coercions for datetime objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656533 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jples...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jples...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1649552] Review Request: jmc - Profiling and diagnostics tool for Java applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649552 --- Comment #9 from Severin Gehwolf --- (In reply to Salman Siddiqui from comment #7) > SRPM URL: > https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sasiddiq/missioncontrol/ > fedora-29-x86_64/00833794-jmc/jmc-7.0.0-0.20181130hg1ddf3baa4e26.fc29.src.rpm FYI: This required an eclipse fix to build on F28: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/eclipse/pull-request/3 A similar fix is present in F29+ eclipse(s)[1], so that's why builds work there. [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/eclipse.git/commit/?id=52d8d4ead9b30fd07c5d8a25bac139d962b1755c -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1654876] Review Request: zsh-autosuggestions - Fish-like autosuggestions for Zsh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654876
--- Comment #7 from Dillen Meijboom ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #6)
> > I will fix this but can you explain when it is appropriate to create a
> > separate package for documentation? Or is this never suppose to happen?
>
> Usually when the documentation is over 1MB or contains a lot of files.
>
> > Also why are "install -d %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}" and
> > "%{_pkgdocdir} in %files" not needed?
>
> You don't need to create the dir, specifying %doc README.md will take care
> of that.
Thanks for the information. I tried building the package but I can't get the
tests to work. I'm not sure what to do next, should I simply comment-out the
%check function or create an issue upstream and make sure the tests work?
Current spec file:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dmeijboom/Zsh/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00832436-zsh-autosuggestions/zsh-autosuggestions.spec
Build logs: https://pastebin.com/aMAV46iB
--
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
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
