[Bug 1744144] Review Request: golang-github-gobuffalo-packr - Simple and easy way to embed static files into Go binaries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744144
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
Latest version is 2.6.0.
One file appears to be ASL 2.0, which may have been an accident and you might
want to report that upstream.
This is actually a correctly implemented v2 with it contained in a separate
subdirectory. This means your -devel package actually provides both v1 (no
suffix) and v2 import paths, and go.mods, etc.. I'm not sure if that means they
should be placed into their own separate subpackages. It shold provide two
golang-ipath, I think.
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.
[!]: 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", "Expat
License", "Apache License (v2.0)". 163 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
1744144-golang-github-gobuffalo-packr/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 30720 bytes in 16 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.
[!]: 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
[Bug 1747622] Review Request: golang-github-cmd - Go library wrapper around os/exec.Cmd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747622 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|quantum.anal...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- I'll approve this, but keep in mind that tests will start failing once https://pagure.io/go-rpm-macros/pull-request/20 is shipped out. -- 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 1749094] Review Request: polybar - A fast and easy-to-use status bar for tiling WM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749094
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
- Summary should not start with "A".
- License is MIT and BSD. Also, the file should be tagged as %license.
- Group is not used in Fedora.
- Why are URL and Source pointing to different GitHub owners?
- Source URL can be written as
Source0:
https://github.com/polybar/polybar/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
for better portability. (Also, can replace the beginning with %{url} if those
are changed to match.)
- Why do you need python2? This is going away soon and is deprecated. Can it
run with python3?
- You should pass . as directory to the %cmake macro.
- Use %make_build instead of make %{?_smp_mflags}
- %{_datadir}/bash-completion/ and %{_datadir}/bash-completion/completions are
owned by filesystem, so you don't need to own them.
- There's a bundled copy of jsoncpp. If possible, please delete it in %prep to
ensure that you aren't accidentally building against it (you aren't right
now, but still.)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
Note: python27 is deprecated, you must not depend on it.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/deprecating-packages/
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in 1749094-polybar/diff.txt
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: 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.
[!]: 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", "BSD 2-clause
"Simplified" License", "*No copyright* Expat License". 542 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
1749094-polybar/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/bash-completion(filesystem),
/usr/share/bash-completion/completions(filesystem)
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[?]: 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 1 files.
[!]: 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
[Bug 1748228] Review Request: ghc-xdg-userdirs - Basic implementation of XDG user directories specification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748228 Elliott Sales de Andrade 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 1748228] Review Request: ghc-xdg-userdirs - Basic implementation of XDG user directories specification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748228
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|quantum.anal...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
There are many many warnings about symbols, and it's so long I can't post them
here, but this seems to be the same for all Haskell packages now.
Approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or
generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in 1748228-ghc-xdg-userdirs/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[?]: 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 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]: 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
[Bug 1748471] Review Request: xtensor-python - Python bindings for xtensor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748471 Elliott Sales de Andrade changed: What|Removed |Added CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade --- Python packages MUST be named python-*, and since this one ends in -python too, you probably will want to name it python-xtensor. URL should be https:// In the description, STL-compliant should not have spaces, and it should be capitalized as NumPy. -- 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 1748059] Review Request: python-license-expression - Library to parse, compare, simplify and normalize license expressions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748059
Elliott Sales de Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|quantum.anal...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Elliott Sales de Andrade ---
- You should delete PKG-INFO and src/license_expression.egg-info in %prep.
- Passing %{pypi_name} to %pypi_source is unnecessary.
- `irc-notify.py` is GPLv2+, but not installed. Please add a note above the
License so others aren't confused by it.
- `Requires: %{py3_dist boolean.py}` is unnecessary and redundant with
automatic
Provides/Requires.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
= 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", "Apache License (v2.0)", "*No
copyright* Apache License", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)",
"GPL (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)". 16 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
1748059-python-license-expression/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.
[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.
[!]: 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 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 license text(s)
[Bug 1739843] Review Request: rust-sudo_plugin - Macros to easily write custom sudo plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739843 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-09-05 04:03:35 -- 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 1739794] Review Request: rust-sudo_plugin-sys - Bindings to the sudo plugin API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739794 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-09-05 03:44:53 -- 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 1739843] Review Request: rust-sudo_plugin - Macros to easily write custom sudo plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739843 Bug 1739843 depends on bug 1739794, which changed state. Bug 1739794 Summary: Review Request: rust-sudo_plugin-sys - Bindings to the sudo plugin API https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739794 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 1739794] Review Request: rust-sudo_plugin-sys - Bindings to the sudo plugin API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739794 --- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-sudo_plugin-sys -- 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 1739843] Review Request: rust-sudo_plugin - Macros to easily write custom sudo plugins
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739843 --- Comment #2 from Igor Gnatenko --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-sudo_plugin -- 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 1749150] New: Review Request: rust-dutree - Command line tool to analyze disk usage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749150 Bug ID: 1749150 Summary: Review Request: rust-dutree - Command line tool to analyze disk usage Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-dutree.spec SRPM URL: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/rust-dutree-0.2.9-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Command line tool to analyze disk usage. Fedora Account System Username: ignatenkobrain -- 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 1747843] Review Request: golang-github-test-deep - Golang deep variable equality test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747843 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-test-deep-1.0.3-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2019-73ac87871c -- 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 1748637] Review Request: python-pulsectl - Python high-level interface and ctypes-based bindings for PulseAudio (libpulse)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748637 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pulsectl -- 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 1748678] Review Request: usbtop - Utility to show USB bandwidth
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748678 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Neal Gompa --- Package review notes: [x]: Package is named according to packaging guidelines [x]: Package builds and installs [x]: Package uses macros consistently [x]: Package licensing is correctly declared and installed 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 1749094] New: Review Request: polybar - A fast and easy-to-use status bar for tiling WM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1749094 Bug ID: 1749094 Summary: Review Request: polybar - A fast and easy-to-use status bar for tiling WM Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: francocom...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/fcomida/polybar/fedora-30-x86_64/01028301-polybar/polybar.spec RPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/fcomida/polybar/fedora-30-x86_64/01028301-polybar/polybar-3.4.0-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: Polybar aims to help users build beautiful and highly customizable status bars for their desktop environment, without the need of having a black belt in shell scripting. Fedora Account System Username: fcomida -- 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 1745846] Review Request: f31-backgrounds - Fedora 31 default desktop background
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745846 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2019-09-04 20:54:42 --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System --- desktop-backgrounds-31.0.0-1.fc31, f31-backgrounds-31.0.2-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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 1748678] Review Request: usbtop - Utility to show USB bandwidth
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748678
--- Comment #3 from Carl George ---
Spec URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01028279-usbtop/usbtop.spec
SRPM URL:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/carlwgeorge/reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01028279-usbtop/usbtop-1.0-2.fc32.src.rpm
As requested:
+BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros
-%setup -q -n usbtop-release-%{version}
+%autosetup -n usbtop-release-%{version}
-install -d %{buildroot}%{_usr}/lib/modules-load.d
-echo usbmon > %{buildroot}%{_usr}/lib/modules-load.d/usbtop.conf
+install -d %{buildroot}%{_modulesloaddir}
+echo usbmon > %{buildroot}%{_modulesloaddir}/usbtop.conf
-%{_usr}/lib/modules-load.d/usbtop.conf
+%{_modulesloaddir}/usbtop.conf
--
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 1748470] Review Request: xtensor - C++ tensors with broadcasting and lazy computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748470 serge_sans_paille changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-09-04 19:30:54 --- Comment #7 from serge_sans_paille --- build done, package should be availabe in rawhide. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1371231 -- 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 1748471] Review Request: xtensor-python - Python bindings for xtensor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748471 Bug 1748471 depends on bug 1748470, which changed state. Bug 1748470 Summary: Review Request: xtensor - C++ tensors with broadcasting and lazy computing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748470 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 1748637] Review Request: python-pulsectl - Python high-level interface and ctypes-based bindings for PulseAudio (libpulse)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748637 --- Comment #4 from Paul W. Frields --- I realized I messed up the naming, so it's fixed before I ask for a branch. I also discovered missing Requires: that wasn't brought in implicitly, fixed. So here's the result for good measure: Spec URL: https://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/packages/SPECS/python-pulsectl.spec SRPM URL: https://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-pulsectl-18.12.5-1.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://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 1748942] Review Request: xde-menu - Menu system for the X Desktop Environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748942 --- Comment #1 from Artem --- https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/xde-menu/fedora-30-x86_64/01028234-xde-menu/xde-menu.spec https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/xde-menu/fedora-30-x86_64/01028234-xde-menu/xde-menu-0.10-2.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://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 1748678] Review Request: usbtop - Utility to show USB bandwidth
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748678
--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa ---
> install -d %{buildroot}%{_usr}/lib/modules-load.d
Replace "%{_usr}/lib/modules-load.d" with "%{_modulesloaddir}". This requires
adding "BuildRequires: systemd" (or for Fedora 30+, "BuildRequires:
systemd-rpm-macros" is sufficient).
> %setup -q -n usbtop-release-%{version}
You can use "%autosetup -n %{name}-release-%{version}" instead.
--
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 1747843] Review Request: golang-github-test-deep - Golang deep variable equality test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747843 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-73ac87871c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-73ac87871c -- 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 1747843] Review Request: golang-github-test-deep - Golang deep variable equality test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747843 --- Comment #3 from Carl George --- rawhide: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-9966546e61 -- 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 1748678] Review Request: usbtop - Utility to show USB bandwidth
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748678 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ngomp...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa --- Taking this 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 1748637] Review Request: python-pulsectl - Python high-level interface and ctypes-based bindings for PulseAudio (libpulse)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748637 Paul W. Frields changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: pulsectl - |Review Request: |Python high-level interface |python-pulsectl - Python |and ctypes-based bindings |high-level interface and |for PulseAudio (libpulse) |ctypes-based bindings for ||PulseAudio (libpulse) -- 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 1748967] Review Request: python-satyr - Python bindings for satyr.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748967
--- Comment #2 from Ernestas Kulik ---
I would suggest:
- make %{?_smp_mflags}
+ %make_build
- make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
+ %make_install
--
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 1726400] Review Request: python-text-unidecode - A Python module for handling non-Roman text data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1726400 --- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-text-unidecode -- 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 1748470] Review Request: xtensor - C++ tensors with broadcasting and lazy computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748470 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xtensor -- 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 1726400] Review Request: python-text-unidecode - A Python module for handling non-Roman text data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1726400 --- Comment #10 from Fabian Affolter --- See https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/16085 -- 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 1726400] Review Request: python-text-unidecode - A Python module for handling non-Roman text data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1726400 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|zebo...@gmail.com |j.orti.alca...@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://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 1748967] Review Request: python-satyr - Python bindings for satyr.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748967 Ernestas Kulik changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||eku...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|eku...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Ernestas Kulik --- python-satyr.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Python binding for satyr. python-satyr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US microreports -> micro reports, micro-reports, misreports python-satyr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Microreports -> Micro reports, Micro-reports, Misreports Error checking signature of python-satyr-0.26-2.fc32.src.rpm: python-satyr-0.26-2.fc32.src.rpm: digests SIGNATURES NOT OK python-satyr.src: E: invalid-spec-name python-satyr.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/abrt/satyr/archive/0.26/satyr-0.26.tar.xz HTTP Error 404: Not Found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ 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 1747552] Review Request: libdfp - Decimal Floating Point library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747552 --- Comment #2 from s...@linux.ibm.com --- I've adjusted the spec file according to your comments. But I can't use make_install as it would setup DESTDIR instead of install_root. You'll find the current spec-file here: https://pagure.io/fork/stliibm/libdfp/blob/stli-20190904/f/libdfp.spec I've also created a pull-request: https://pagure.io/libdfp/pull-request/1 I've also performed some scratch builds for ppc64le and s390x on: -F30: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37456479 -F31: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37456559 -epel8: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37456581 They are all green despite of epel8 on s390x where I've got test-fails: FAIL: test-cast-to-overflow FAIL: test-cast-to-underflow => These tests fails due to a missing patch in gcc (see https://github.com/libdfp/libdfp/issues/71#issuecomment-420614177). The patch was backported to gcc 8.3. According to the logs for the epel8 build, gcc-8.2.1-3.5.el8.src.rpm was used. Will epel8 use a newer gcc-8.3.* as soon as such a newer version is available in RHEL 8? -- 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 1748471] Review Request: xtensor-python - Python bindings for xtensor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748471 serge_sans_paille changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|xtensor-python - Python |Review Request: |bindings for xtensor|xtensor-python - Python ||bindings for xtensor -- 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 1748470] Review Request: xtensor - C++ tensors with broadcasting and lazy computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748470 serge_sans_paille changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|xtensor - C++ tensors with |Review Request: xtensor - |broadcasting and lazy |C++ tensors with |computing |broadcasting and lazy ||computing -- 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 1748967] New: Review Request: python-satyr - Python bindings for satyr.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748967 Bug ID: 1748967 Summary: Review Request: python-satyr - Python bindings for satyr. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mkut...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://mkutlak.fedorapeople.org/pkg_review/python-satyr/satyr.spec SRPM URL: https://mkutlak.fedorapeople.org/pkg_review/python-satyr/python-satyr-0.26-2.el8.src.rpm SRPM URL: https://mkutlak.fedorapeople.org/pkg_review/python-satyr/python-satyr-0.26-2.fc32.src.rpm COPR repo: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mkutlak/a-el8/build/1028077/ Description: This package provides Python 3 bindings for satyr. Fedora Account System Username: mkutlak Upstream: https://github.com/abrt/satyr This package is intended only for EPEL-8. -- 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 1748958] New: Review Request: golang-github-ua-parser-uap - Go implementation of ua-parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748958 Bug ID: 1748958 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-ua-parser-uap - Go implementation of ua-parser Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: agerstm...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://github.com/andreasgerstmayr/specs/raw/master/golang-github-ua-parser-uap/golang-github-ua-parser-uap.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/andreasgerstmayr/specs/raw/master/SRPMS/golang-github-ua-parser-uap-0-1.20190903gitdaf92ba.fc30.src.rpm Description: Go implementation of ua-parser Fedora Account System Username: agerstmayr spec created with go2rpm, and the required go macros are in go-rpm-macros, which are only available in rawhide as of now. -- 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 1748956] Review Request: python-dateparser - A Python parser for human readable dates
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748956 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1748938 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748938 [Bug 1748938] Review Request: python-convertdate - A Python module to convert date formats and calculating holidays -- 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 1748938] Review Request: python-convertdate - A Python module to convert date formats and calculating holidays
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748938 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1748956 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748956 [Bug 1748956] Review Request: python-dateparser - A Python parser for human readable dates -- 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 1748956] New: Review Request: python-dateparser - A Python parser for human readable dates
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748956 Bug ID: 1748956 Summary: Review Request: python-dateparser - A Python parser for human readable dates Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-dateparser.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-dateparser-0.7.1-1.fc30.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/scrapinghub/dateparser Description: dateparser provides modules to easily parse localized dates in almost any string formats commonly found on web pages. rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-dateparser-0.7.1-1.fc30.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-dateparser-0.7.1-1.fc30.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ 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 1748942] New: Review Request: xde-menu - Menu system for the X Desktop Environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748942 Bug ID: 1748942 Summary: Review Request: xde-menu - Menu system for the X Desktop Environment Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ego.corda...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/xde-menu/fedora-30-x86_64/01028070-xde-menu/xde-menu.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/xde-menu/fedora-30-x86_64/01028070-xde-menu/xde-menu-0.10-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: This package provides a number of "C"-language tools for working with the X Desktop Environment. Most of these tools were previously written in 'perl(1)' and were part of the 'xde-tools' package. They have now been codified in "C" for speed and to provide access to libraries not available from 'perl(1)'. Fedora Account System Username: atim Working COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/atim/xde-menu -- 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 1748938] New: Review Request: python-convertdate - A Python module to convert date formats and calculating holidays
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748938 Bug ID: 1748938 Summary: Review Request: python-convertdate - A Python module to convert date formats and calculating holidays Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-convertdate.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-convertdate-2.1.3-1.fc30.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/fitnr/convertdate Description: Converts between Gregorian dates and other calendar systems. Calendars included: Baha'i, French Republican, Hebrew, Indian Civil, Islamic, ISO, Julian, Mayan and Persian. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37456282 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-convertdate-2.1.3-1.fc30.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-convertdate-2.1.3-1.fc30.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ 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 1748929] New: Review Request: rubygem-stringex - Useful extensions to Ruby's String class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748929 Bug ID: 1748929 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-stringex - Useful extensions to Ruby's String class Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: decatho...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rubygem-stringex.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rubygem-stringex-2.8.5-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: Some [hopefully] useful extensions to Ruby's String class. Stringex is made up of three libraries: ActsAsUrl [permalink solution with better character translation], Unidecoder [Unicode to ASCII transliteration], and StringExtensions [miscellaneous helper methods for the String class]. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe koji scratch build for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37455370 -- 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 1747843] Review Request: golang-github-test-deep - Golang deep variable equality test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747843 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-test-deep -- 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 1745291] Review Request: python-webscrapbook - A backend toolkit for management of WebScrapBook collection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745291 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-webscrapbook -- 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 1747655] Review Request: rubygem-test-unit - xUnit family unit testing framework for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747655 --- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini --- Oh. Thanks. I could swear that another one of my pending packages failed to build with a missing "rubygem(test-unit)" dependency before, but it works now ... -- 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 635126] Review Request: rubygem-test-unit - Improved version of Test::Unit bundled in Ruby 1.8.x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635126 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||decatho...@gmail.com --- Comment #14 from Vít Ondruch --- *** Bug 1747655 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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://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 1747655] Review Request: rubygem-test-unit - xUnit family unit testing framework for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747655 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||vondr...@redhat.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vondr...@redhat.com Last Closed||2019-09-04 12:39:38 --- Comment #1 from Vít Ondruch --- We already have rubygem-test-unit in Fedora [1]. We even have it in second version from time to time [2, 3]. [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-test-unit [2] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ruby/blob/master/f/ruby.spec#_476 [3] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/ruby/2.6.3/122.fc32/noarch/rubygem-test-unit-3.2.9-122.fc32.noarch.rpm *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 635126 *** -- 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 1645172] Review Request: firejail - Linux namespaces sandbox program
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645172 dan.cer...@cgc-instruments.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(jskarvad@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #29 from dan.cer...@cgc-instruments.com --- This bug can be closed, right? -- 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 1743689] Review Request: bemenu - Dynamic menu library and client program inspired by dmenu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1743689 --- Comment #2 from Jan Staněk --- Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jstanek/package-reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01027999-bemenu/bemenu.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/jstanek/package-reviews/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01027999-bemenu/bemenu-0.1.0-3.20190819git442d283.fc32.src.rpm > %ldconfig_scriptlets I had forgotten that there from my debugging of "which .so link goes to which package". Removed. > we forbid globbing the major soname version, be more specific instead Enumerated the names explicitly, good catch. -- 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 1714001] Review Request: python-pyshark - Python packet parsing using wireshark dissectors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1714001 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for your comment. * Tue Sep 03 2019 Fabian Affolter - 0.4.2.3-2 - Enable tests (rhbz#1714001) - Add license file - Use source from GitHub Updates files: Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-pyshark.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-pyshark-0.4.2.3-2.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://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 1748637] Review Request: pulsectl - Python high-level interface and ctypes-based bindings for PulseAudio (libpulse)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748637 --- Comment #3 from Paul W. Frields --- Your note about the description is true -- however, the source *does* build OK against Python 2 (designed for both), and I just don't build the Python 2 stack. But if someone wanted to branch it for EPEL 7 and do that, they could. That's why I left the SRPM description alone. However, if you think it's important for the description to match, I'll change 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://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 1714009] Review Request: python-dictdumper - A Python dict formatted dumper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1714009 --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter --- * Tue Sep 03 2019 Fabian Affolter - 0.7.1-1 - Update to latest upstream release 0.7.1 Updated files: Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-dictdumper.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-dictdumper-0.7.1-1.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://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 1722656] Review Request: python-sybil - Automated testing for the examples in your documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1722656 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the review. Updated files: Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-sybil.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-sybil-1.2.0-2.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://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 1729056] Review Request: blkinfo - blkinfo is a python library to enumerate and filter all block devices available in a system.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1729056 --- Comment #9 from Gennadii Altukhov --- Hi, Now I can expect to see the rpm package spec here https://src.fedoraproject.org/projects/rpms/, right? -- 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 1745846] Review Request: f31-backgrounds - Fedora 31 default desktop background
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1745846 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System --- desktop-backgrounds-31.0.0-1.fc31, f31-backgrounds-31.0.2-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2019-8b2cccfabf -- 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 1735762] Review Request: fctxpd - This daemon adds FC network intelligence in host and host intelligence in FC network
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1735762 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- fctxpd-0.1-1.20190813gitc195e67.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2019-3b88c02582 -- 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 1747623] Review Request: golang-github-vultr-govultr - Vultr Go API client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1747623 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- golang-github-vultr-govultr-0.1.4-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2019-5ba2a2690d -- 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 1748469] xtl - Basic tools (containers, algorithms) used by xtensor-* packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748469 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2019-09-04 10:22:16 --- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1558473 *** -- 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 1558473] Review Request: xtl - QuantStack tools library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1558473 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sguel...@redhat.com --- Comment #10 from Miro Hrončok --- *** Bug 1748469 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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 1748471] xtensor-python - Python bindings for xtensor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748471 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mhron...@redhat.com Depends On||1748470 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748470 [Bug 1748470] xtensor - C++ tensors with broadcasting and lazy computing -- 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 1748470] xtensor - C++ tensors with broadcasting and lazy computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748470 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1748471 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748471 [Bug 1748471] xtensor-python - Python bindings for xtensor -- 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 1748469] xtl - Basic tools (containers, algorithms) used by xtensor-* packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748469 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mhron...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@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://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 1748470] xtensor - C++ tensors with broadcasting and lazy computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748470 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Miro Hrončok --- The description was updated as well: $ rpmlint xtensor.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint xtensor-0.20.8-0.fc31.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. 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 1748470] xtensor - C++ tensors with broadcasting and lazy computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748470 --- Comment #3 from serge_sans_paille --- tab vs. space issue fixed and uploaded. -- 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 1748470] xtensor - C++ tensors with broadcasting and lazy computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748470
--- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
There are rpmlint errors to fix:
- description-line-too-long
- mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[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: xtensor-0.20.8/cmake/FindTBB.cmake is MIT, but not shipped.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[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
= 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.
[x]: 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.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %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
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded
[Bug 1748470] xtensor - C++ tensors with broadcasting and lazy computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748470 --- Comment #2 from serge_sans_paille --- > Does the commit apply cleanly? If yes, you can do: Unfortunately not. it contains some binary diff ( for a test case) so I had to slightly rework it. Thanks for the tip anyway :-) -- 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 1748470] xtensor - C++ tensors with broadcasting and lazy computing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748470
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||mhron...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok ---
#see
https://github.com/QuantStack/xtensor/commit/842d79cc7aea882ad69dfe5ebcd6ad8a7be24624
Patch1: 842d79cc7aea882ad69dfe5ebcd6ad8a7be24624.patch
Does the commit apply cleanly? If yes, you can do:
Patch1:
%{github}/commit/842d79cc7aea882ad69dfe5ebcd6ad8a7be24624.patch
That line also has tabs and you are mixing tabs and spaces.
Running automated checks.
--
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 1726400] Review Request: python-text-unidecode - A Python module for handling non-Roman text data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1726400
Juan Orti Alcaine changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
|needinfo?(j.orti.alcaine@gm |
|ail.com)|
--- Comment #9 from Juan Orti Alcaine ---
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: "Unknown or generated", "Artistic License", "*No copyright*
Artistic License". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/juan/1726400-python-text-
unidecode/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[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: 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 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 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.
[Bug 1748233] Review Request: pgloader - Data loading tool for PostgreSQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748233 Michal Schorm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msch...@redhat.com --- Comment #5 from Michal Schorm --- (In reply to Miroslav Suchý from comment #3) > > Hmm, I am really woried about those bundles in tarball - all those > pgloader-bundle-3.6.1/software/* Instead of that you have to use normal > libraries and packages in Fedora. And if they do not exists there yet, they > need to be packaged separately. In theory yes - all of the requirements should be also separately packed, prior to this package. However I see two main obstructions here. 1) The program is written in such a way, the Common LISP download the libraries at runtime (really, by curl). * The libraries are mostly latest push in the master branch of the project. * To resolve this and make things safer (different library version each run), we need to get them prior the runtime - either pack them, or bundle them. * The upstream release the bundle with specific library versions and marks this as a recommended way to pack the application to various OS. 2) There are ~70 LISP libraries in that bundle. Between following stable versions (of pgloader), most of them are updated to another specific version, so it would be hard to manage them packed separately. Given that that specific set of versions of those libraries is supported and tested configuration by the upstream, I'd stick to it for now. Do you agree? -- 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 1704958] Review Request: wafw00f - A tool to identifies and fingerprints Web Application Firewall (WAF)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1704958 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(zebo...@gmail.com ||) --- Comment #5 from Fabian Affolter --- Is there something missing? -- 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 1726400] Review Request: python-text-unidecode - A Python module for handling non-Roman text data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1726400 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(j.orti.alcaine@gm ||ail.com) --- Comment #8 from Fabian Affolter --- Juan, are you now going to review 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
