[Bug 1720575] Review Request: python-glad - Multi-Language GL/GLES/EGL/GLX/WGL Loader-Generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1720575 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- python-glad-0.1.30-1.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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1707960] Review Request: php-brumann-polyfill-unserialize - Backports unserialize options introduced in PHP 7.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1707960 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- php-brumann-polyfill-unserialize-1.0.3-1.fc29, php-typo3-phar-stream-wrapper2-2.1.2-1.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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1714350] Review Request: repmgr - Replication Manager for PostgreSQL Clusters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1714350 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- repmgr-4.3.0-2.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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1721292] Review Request: R-sessioninfo - R Session Information
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1721292 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- R-sessioninfo-1.1.1-1.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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1721409] Review Request: python-pylatex - Library for creating LaTeX files and snippets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1721409 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- python-pylatex-1.3.0-1.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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1721338] Review Request: R-rcmdcheck - Run 'R CMD check' from 'R' and Capture Results
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1721338 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- R-rcmdcheck-1.3.3-1.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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1710215] Review Request: R-xopen - Open System Files, 'URLs', Anything
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1710215 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- R-xopen-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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1704917] Review Request: python-cssselect2 - CSS selectors for Python ElementTree
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704917 --- Comment #6 from Eric Smith --- The requested changes were made on May 2 (comment 5). -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1722843] Review Request: Happinesspacket Schema - A schema package for Fedora Happiness Packets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1722843 --- Comment #2 from shraddha.agrawal...@gmail.com --- I have updated the package with the corrections. I would love to hear feedback -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1724278] Review Request: python-beniget - Extract semantic information about static Python code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724278 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-beniget -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1724278] Review Request: python-beniget - Extract semantic information about static Python code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724278 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST --- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok --- Thanks. Please post rpmlint output next time. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1723572] Review Request: python-cachecontrol - The httplib2 caching algorithms packaged up for use with requests.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723572 --- Comment #3 from Dylan Stephano-Shachter --- I didn't see that as I initially built these for Centos. Thanks for catching this. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1724278] Review Request: python-beniget - Extract semantic information about static Python code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724278 Patrik Kopkan changed: What|Removed |Added 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1724278] Review Request: python-beniget - Extract semantic information about static Python code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724278
Patrik Kopkan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pkop...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pkop...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Patrik Kopkan ---
I think package is in good state to be in Fedora.
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 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or
generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 15 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/pkopkan/Documents/review/1667680-python-gast/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 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.
[ ]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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
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]: 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.
[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.
[?]: 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
[Bug 1724202] Review Request: python-importlib-metadata - Read metadata from Python packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724202 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-importlib-metadata-0 ||.18-1.fc31 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-06-27 15:56:09 --- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok --- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1724202] Review Request: python-importlib-metadata - Read metadata from Python packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724202 Bug 1724202 depends on bug 1724196, which changed state. Bug 1724196 Summary: Review Request: python-zipp - Backport of pathlib-compatible object wrapper for zip files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724196 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1694366] Review Request: python-pre-commit - Framework for managing and maintaining multi-language pre-commit hooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694366 Bug 1694366 depends on bug 1724202, which changed state. Bug 1724202 Summary: Review Request: python-importlib-metadata - Read metadata from Python packages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724202 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1724196] Review Request: python-zipp - Backport of pathlib-compatible object wrapper for zip files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724196 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-zipp-0.5.1-1.fc31 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-06-27 15:55:58 --- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok --- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1724111] Review Request: lsp-plugins - Linux Studio Plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724111 --- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lsp-plugins -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1723104] Review Request: golang-github-jacobsa-ogletest - A Go unit testing framework like Google Test for C++ and JS Test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723104 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-jacobsa-ogletest -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1724202] Review Request: python-importlib-metadata - Read metadata from Python packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724202 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-importlib-metadata -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1724196] Review Request: python-zipp - Backport of pathlib-compatible object wrapper for zip files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724196 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-zipp -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1724111] Review Request: lsp-plugins - Linux Studio Plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724111 Vasiliy Glazov changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request lsp-plugins |Review Request: lsp-plugins ||- Linux Studio Plugins -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1724111] Review Request lsp-plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724111 Vitaly Zaitsev changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Vitaly Zaitsev --- LGTM now. 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1724111] Review Request lsp-plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724111
--- Comment #8 from Vitaly Zaitsev ---
Requires: ladspa%{?_isa}
Requires: lv2%{?_isa}
Requires: Carla-vst%{?_isa}
--
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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1724111] Review Request lsp-plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724111 --- Comment #7 from Vasiliy Glazov --- SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1711/35861711/lsp-plugins-1.1.9-2.fc31.src.rpm lsp-plugins-jack-core.so.1.1.9 moved to subdirectory. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1723104] Review Request: golang-github-jacobsa-ogletest - A Go unit testing framework like Google Test for C++ and JS Test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723104 --- Comment #4 from Brian (bex) Exelbierd --- THANK YOU! -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1723105] Review Request: golang-github-jacobsa-oglemock - A mocking framework for Go inspired by Google Mock for C++ and Google JS Test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723105 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE |RAWHIDE --- Comment #6 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- This is not Current Release; it's Rawhide. There are no other builds. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1723104] Review Request: golang-github-jacobsa-ogletest - A Go unit testing framework like Google Test for C++ and JS Test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723104
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
Remove "A" from Summary. 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No
copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "Apache License (v2.0)". 14 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
1723104-golang-github-jacobsa-ogletest/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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.
[?]: 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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.
[-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager,
[Bug 1723103] Review Request: python-imagehash - A Python perceptual image hashing module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723103
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
You've used the GitHub sources instead of PyPI (any reason for that?), so there
are definitely tests available, but you do not appear to run them. Can they not
be enabled?
There's also a typo in the version of the changelog, should be 4.0-1.
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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License",
"Public domain", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 17 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
1723103-python-imagehash/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[?]: 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]: 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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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
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
[Bug 1723102] Review Request: pythopn-pywavelets - A Python module for wavelet transforms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723102 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- I think this already exists? https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/python-pywt -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1723572] Review Request: python-cachecontrol - The httplib2 caching algorithms packaged up for use with requests.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723572 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- I believe this already exists? https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/python-CacheControl -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1702720] Review Request: frr - routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1702720 Martin Osvald changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(mruprich@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #11 from Martin Osvald --- Michal, pls, see the comment 9 and comment 10 to find out about the remaining issues needed to be fixed. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1724202] Review Request: python-importlib-metadata - Read metadata from Python packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724202 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge --- This package depends on python-zipp. However, the spec looks good, is readable, check is being executed during build. The package does not bundle other libraries. The license is correct andf the package follows python 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1702720] Review Request: frr - routing daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1702720
--- Comment #10 from Martin Osvald ---
this is a follow up to comment 9...
regarding the remaining issue:
~~~
Issues:
===
...
- systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
Note: Systemd service file(s) in frr
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets
~~~
It looks like a fedora-review bug to me. If we add extra debug statements, we
find out that lines #2023 & #2029 (comment 9) containing:
rpm.expandMacro("%systemd_post .*.service")
rpm.expandMacro("%systemd_preun .*.service")
expand to:
~~~
if [ $1 -eq 1 ] ; then
# Initial installation
systemctl --no-reload preset .*.service >/dev/null 2>&1 || :
fi
~~~
and (respectively):
~~~
if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then
# Package removal, not upgrade
systemctl --no-reload disable --now .*.service >/dev/null 2>&1 || :
fi
~~~
whereas the %post and %preun from lines #2039 & #2040 (comment 9):
str(rpmpkg.post)
str(rpmpkg.preun)
expand to:
~~~
/bin/sh
if [ $1 -eq 1 ] && [ -x /usr/bin/systemctl ] ; then
# Initial installation
/usr/bin/systemctl --no-reload preset frr.service || :
fi
if [ -f /usr/share/info/frr.inf* ]; then
install-info /usr/share/info/frr.info /usr/share/info/dir || :
fi
# Create dummy files if they don't exist so basic functions can be used.
if [ ! -e /etc/frr/frr.conf ]; then
echo "hostname `hostname`" > /etc/frr/frr.conf
chown frr:frr /etc/frr/frr.conf
chmod 640 /etc/frr/frr.conf
fi
~~~
and (respectively):
~~~
/bin/sh
if [ $1 -eq 0 ] && [ -x /usr/bin/systemctl ] ; then
# Package removal, not upgrade
/usr/bin/systemctl --no-reload disable --now frr.service || :
fi
~~~
while it is not easy to spot it at first, there is a missing part ">/dev/null
2>&1" in them which are present in the output from rpm.expandMacro().
This leads to setting 'failed' to true at line #2041 (comment 9) and reporting
it as missing.
I don't have time to dig further to find out what exactly is behind this, that
the actual code in frr.spec:
~~~
115 %post
116 %systemd_post frr.service
...
139 %preun
140 %systemd_preun frr.service
~~~
doesn't resolve to the same output as from rpm.expandMacro(), but that what's
happening.
Additional info:
Code with debug statements and related parts:
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/rpm_file.py
~~~
96 def _scriptlet(self, prog_tag, script_tag):
97 """ Return inline -p script, script or None. """
98 self.init()
99 prog = self.header_to_str(prog_tag)
100 script = self.header_to_str(script_tag)
101 print("PROG", prog)
102 print("SCRIPT", script)
103 if prog and script:
104 return prog + script
105 if prog:
106 return prog
107 return script
...
124 @property
125 def preun(self):
126 """ Return preUn scriptlet. """
127 return self._scriptlet(rpm.RPMTAG_PREUNPROG, rpm.RPMTAG_PREUN)
128
129 @property
130 def post(self):
131 """ Return post scriptlet. """
132 return self._scriptlet(rpm.RPMTAG_POSTINPROG, rpm.RPMTAG_POSTIN)
~~~
/usr/share/fedora-review/plugins/generic.py:
~~~
2012 class CheckSystemdUnitdirScriplets(GenericCheckBase):
2013 """ Check that Systemd unitdir scriplets are run if required. """
2014
2015 def __init__(self, base):
2016 GenericCheckBase.__init__(self, base)
2017 self.url = (
2018 "https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US;
2019 "/packaging-guidelines/Scriptlets/#_scriptlets"
2020 )
2021 self.text = (
2022 "systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in"
2023 " %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd"
2024 " service files."
2025 )
2026 self.automatic = True
2027 self.type = "MUST"
2028
2029 def run(self):
2030 using = []
2031 failed = False
2032 systemd_post_re = re.compile(
2033 re.escape(rpm.expandMacro("%systemd_post
.*.service")).replace(
2034 r"\.\*", ".*"
2035 )[2:-4],
2036 re.M,
2037 )
2038 systemd_preun_re = re.compile(
2039 re.escape(rpm.expandMacro("%systemd_preun
.*.service")).replace(
2040 r"\.\*", ".*"
2041 )[2:-4],
2042 re.M,
2043 )
2044 print("SYSTEMD_POST_RE", systemd_post_re)
2045 print("SYSTEMD_PREUN_RE", systemd_preun_re)
2046 print("EXPANDMACRO POST", rpm.expandMacro("%systemd_post
.*.service"))
2047 print("EXPANDMACRO PREUN", rpm.expandMacro("%systemd_preun
.*.service"))
2048 for pkg in self.spec.packages:
2049 print("PKG", pkg)
2050 if self.rpms.find("/usr/lib/systemd/system/*", pkg):
2051
[Bug 1724196] Review Request: python-zipp - Backport of pathlib-compatible object wrapper for zip files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724196
Matthias Runge changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Matthias Runge ---
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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 23 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/mrunge/review/1724196-python-zipp/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]: 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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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
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:
[x]: 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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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
[Bug 1724196] Review Request: python-zipp - Backport of pathlib-compatible object wrapper for zip files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724196 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mru...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mru...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Matthias Runge --- I'll do a review 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1724202] Review Request: python-importlib-metadata - Read metadata from Python packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724202 Matthias Runge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mru...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mru...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Matthias Runge --- I'll do a review 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1724111] Review Request lsp-plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724111
--- Comment #6 from Vasiliy Glazov ---
Or move lsp-plugins-jack-core.so.1.1.9 to
%{_libdir}/lsp-plugins-jack/lsp-plugins-jack-core.so.1.1.9?
Like alsa-plugins-jack contain /usr/lib64/alsa-lib/libasound_module_pcm_jack.so
--
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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1724111] Review Request lsp-plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724111 --- Comment #5 from Vasiliy Glazov --- 1. License corrected. 2. 3. Doc now noarch. 4. Requires for directories owning added. 5. Used macro for paths. 6. Fedora flags used. 7. Verbose output enabled. I can't find how to create lsp-plugins-jack-core.so.1.1.9 with soname. May be I just drop this subpackage? -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
