[Bug 1759883] Review Request: dolfin - FEniCS computational backend and problem solving environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759883 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Fixed In Version||dolfin-2019.1.0.post0-1.fc3 ||2 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-10-23 05:44:30 --- Comment #7 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Built in 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 1760617] Review Request: mmc - A GPU mesh-based Monte Carlo photon simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617 --- Comment #20 from Qianqian Fang --- ok, I added the "Provides:bundled()" statements, see https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/commit/b86488daa0f88931ce15011de13ac898580592d1 but I want to mention that neither "ssemath" nor "cjson" currently exist in Fedora, is this a problem? rpmlint only complained about missing versions in provides. I confirm that SFMT is currently not compiled in this package - it will only be included when I use "%make_build -f makefile_sfmt", which is not the current building option. please let me know if you see any other places that I need to update. both the .spec and srpm files were updated with URL unchanged. -- 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 1762230] Review Request: golang-github-nicksnyder-i18n-2 - Translate your Go program into multiple languages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1762230 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2019-53ee26ab76 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-53ee26ab76 -- 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 1761032] Review Request: koan - Kickstart Over A Network
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1761032 --- Comment #10 from Orion Poplawski --- Hmm, I need to get rid of that obsoletes in cobbler. They are just completely separate packages at this point. Unfortunately cobber and SELinux still don't entirely play well together. But it's not really relevant for koan since it's a separate thing. SELinux generally doesn't affect koan since it is usually run directly as root and hence is unconfined. -- 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 1761032] Review Request: koan - Kickstart Over A Network
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1761032 Orion Poplawski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||galtu...@redhat.com --- Comment #9 from Orion Poplawski --- *** Bug 1394906 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 1763931] Review Request: apt - Debian's commandline package manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763931 --- Comment #9 from Sergio Monteiro Basto --- Spec URL: https://sergiomb.fedorapeople.org/apt-debian/apt.spec SRPM URL: https://sergiomb.fedorapeople.org/apt-debian/apt-1.4.8-2.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 1760617] Review Request: mmc - A GPU mesh-based Monte Carlo photon simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617 --- Comment #19 from Orion Poplawski --- I don't see how using packaged versions of static/header libraries could be detrimental. The roles of the "Provides: bundled()" idiom is to determine who makes use of a library in any way. The primary use is in case of a security issue with a library - how would you determine what packages would need to get fixed? For static libraries you would look at the BuildRequires. But if a package uses a bundled version, how would you tell? By examining the Provides: bundled() items. -- 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 1763931] Review Request: apt - Debian's commandline package manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763931 --- Comment #8 from Sergio Monteiro Basto --- Spec URL: https://sergiomb.fedorapeople.org/apt-debian/apt.spec SRPM URL: https://sergiomb.fedorapeople.org/apt-debian/apt-1.4.8-2.fc31.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 1763931] Review Request: apt - Debian's commandline package manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763931 --- Comment #7 from Sergio Monteiro Basto --- nope, [1] doesn't build and not forcing >= 3.4.6 [2] also doesn't build [1] https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/sergiomb/debs/apt.git/tree/apt.spec?id=e92d43e189548e413c0f3f02c352997bbeb8f99b [2] https://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/sergiomb/debs/apt.git/tree/apt.spec?id=8bb48bf6641edaab9ca421ae9c3a5b6ac216a836 -- 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 1645764] Review Request: grim - Grab images from a Wayland compositor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645764 Till Hofmann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Assignee|thofm...@fedoraproject.org |nob...@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review? | Last Closed||2019-10-22 22:02:52 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking 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 1764368] New: Review Request: duc - a collection of tools for inspecting and visualizing disk usage.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764368 Bug ID: 1764368 Summary: Review Request: duc - a collection of tools for inspecting and visualizing disk usage. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: robert.fuehri...@jku.at QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora SPEC URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/fuero/duc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01072057-duc/duc.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/fuero/duc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01072057-duc/duc-1.4.4-8.git5a40efd.fc32.src.rpm Upstream URL: https://duc.zevv.nl/ Description from the package's homepage: > Duc is a collection of tools for inspecting and visualizing disk usage. > Duc scales quite well, it has been tested on systems with more than 500 > million files and several petabytes of storage. Comments: This was featured in the Fedora Magazine, but hasn't made it into the review process yet. So here's my (opinionated) take on this package. My proposed usage (and the reason for service files, a config file for root, and the SELinux policy) is: - Have a system-wide index available to root in /var/cache/duc, which is updated without restriction daily and is used when root calls "duc ui". - Have a service available for users they can use to index their homedirectory. rpmlint output: duc-selinux.noarch: W: no-documentation duc.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.4.4-9.git5a40efd ['1.4.4-8.git5a40efd.fc30', '1.4.4-8.git5a40efd'] duc.x86_64: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /root/.ducrc duc.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /root/.ducrc -- 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 1763931] Review Request: apt - Debian's commandline package manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763931 --- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa --- (In reply to Sergio Monteiro Basto from comment #4) > I checked yours apt.spec and pkgconfig(gnutls) >= 3.4 is a problem for epel > 7 so I'd like import my package first to have apt in epel7 . The CMakeLists does not define a specific minimum version, so I can downgrade it once I test it myself. -- 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 1763931] Review Request: apt - Debian's commandline package manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763931 --- Comment #5 from Sergio Monteiro Basto --- https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sergiomb/debs/package/apt/ https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sergiomb/debs/build/1068807/ -- 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 1763597] Review Request: python-graph-tool - Efficient network analysis tool written in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763597 --- Comment #6 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- On second thought, I've removed the conditionals for the review. I'll re-add them to get it to build afterwords: Updated spec/srpm: Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-graph-tool/python-graph-tool.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-graph-tool/python-graph-tool-2.29-1.fc31.src.rpm For each build thread, it requires about 15gigs of memory to build, otherwise it'll use up all your RAM + swap and render your system unresponsive. So I wouldn't get fedora-review to build it if you aren't running it on a beast of a machine :( -- 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 1763931] Review Request: apt - Debian's commandline package manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763931 --- Comment #4 from Sergio Monteiro Basto --- I checked yours apt.spec and pkgconfig(gnutls) >= 3.4 is a problem for epel 7 so I'd like import my package first to have apt in epel7 . -- 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 1763931] Review Request: apt - Debian's commandline package manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763931 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DEFERRED Alias|APT | Last Closed||2019-10-22 20:49:19 --- Comment #3 from Neal Gompa --- Let's close this for now, I'll have the review up by the end of the week, hopefully. -- 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 1763597] Review Request: python-graph-tool - Efficient network analysis tool written in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763597 --- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- I've tweaked the hack to not fail if _smp_build_ncpus is undefined now. That should hopefully parse correctly: Updated spec/srpm: Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-graph-tool/python-graph-tool.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-graph-tool/python-graph-tool-2.29-1.fc31.src.rpm Got another scratch build running: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=38490965 Got lucky here---it's using one of the better machines and building with 8 threads, so it should finish in ~4 hours. Cheers, -- 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 1763045] Review Request: did - What did you do last week, month, year?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763045 --- Comment #10 from Miro Hrončok --- The only remaining issue is missing BR python3-setuptools. -- 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 1763045] Review Request: did - What did you do last week, month, year?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763045 --- Comment #9 from Miro Hrončok --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #7) > $ rpm -qp --requires did-0.14-1.fc32.noarch.rpm > /usr/bin/python3 > python(abi) = 3.8 > python3-bugzilla > python3-httplib2 > python3-requests-gssapi > python3.8dist(python-dateutil) > python3.8dist(requests) > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > #_package_dependencies > > "Automatically determined dependencies MUST NOT be duplicated by manual > dependencies." Scratch that, those are different. Defined as extra in setup.py. -- 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 1763045] Review Request: did - What did you do last week, month, year?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763045
--- Comment #8 from Miro Hrončok ---
If you need those deps for EPEL, you can guard them by %if %{undefined
__pythondist_requires}
--
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 1763045] Review Request: did - What did you do last week, month, year?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763045 --- Comment #7 from Miro Hrončok --- $ rpm -qp --requires did-0.14-1.fc32.noarch.rpm /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) = 3.8 python3-bugzilla python3-httplib2 python3-requests-gssapi python3.8dist(python-dateutil) python3.8dist(requests) https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_package_dependencies "Automatically determined dependencies MUST NOT be duplicated by manual dependencies." -- 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 1763045] Review Request: did - What did you do last week, month, year?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763045 --- Comment #6 from Miro Hrončok --- 1. Why do you have both: Requires: python3-bugzilla Requires: python3-httplib2 Requires: python3-requests-gssapi And: %?python_enable_dependency_generator ? 2. You miss BuildRequires: python3-setuptools - it is now transitively pulled by python3-devel, so the build might work, but it cannot be relied upon. -- 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 1759940] Review Request: htslib - C library for high-throughput sequencing data formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759940
Jun Aruga changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(John.W.Marshall@g
||lasgow.ac.uk)
--- Comment #16 from Jun Aruga ---
> 2. In %files, I suggest using %{_libexecdir}/%{name}/hfile_*.so rather than
> explicitly listing the three that currently exist.
According to following document, so files in %files should not be listed by
using a glob. The example 's pattern "libfoo.so*" is different from the pattern
"hfile_*.so".
But I feel I need to be conscious for each so file.
So, I would prefer the explicitly listing way.
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files
> Shared libraries installed directly into %{_libdir} SHOULD NOT be listed in
> the %files section of the spec by using a glob in a way that conceals
> important parts of the file name (e.g. libfoo.so*), since changes to the
> SONAME also result in a changed file name in most cases.
Other parts you mentioned make sense for me. I updated it following your
suggestions.
I rebased the pull-request, including the man5 pages to the main package.
Could you review again?
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/htslib/pull-request/1
Thanks for your 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 1763045] Review Request: did - What did you do last week, month, year?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763045 --- Comment #5 from Petr Šplíchal --- Thanks for the feedback. All issues should now be fixed: https://github.com/psss/did/commit/630b239 Updated srpm: https://github.com/psss/did/releases/download/0.14/did-0.14-1.fc29.src.rpm Successfully built in copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/psss/did/build/1071415/ -- 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 1759883] Review Request: dolfin - FEniCS computational backend and problem solving environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759883 --- Comment #6 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- Thanks! > - There are headers in the -doc package, but I assume they're simply there for > documentation? That's how I understand it: code that you can look at to see how to use the package. But I didn't look too deeply into it. > - The Requires: on the non-devel package is written differently than in the > guidelines. Please double-check. Fixed to conform to the guidelines. I also made the other changes as suggested. I tried to enable petsc, but that requires slepc, which I couldn't get to build. Upstream wrote their own build system in python ;( I have the mpi support partially done. I'll get the package built in koji, and then work on adding mpi. -- 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 1763518] Review Request: dc3dd - Patched version of GNU dd for use in computer forensics
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763518 Ben Cotton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bcot...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bcot...@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 1763597] Review Request: python-graph-tool - Efficient network analysis tool written in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763597 --- Comment #3 from Ben Cotton --- Ah! From the RPM 4.15.0 release notes: > Add %_smp_build_ncpus macro to determine number of CPUs used for build F30 uses RPM 4.14. So that would explain why it gets mad (running rpmbuild also gives the same error). Would you mind doing a version without that if statement for review? Or else I'll get an F31 test system set up in the next day or two (I'm in a team face-to-face this week) and do it then. -- 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 1763261] Review Request: z - Maintains a jump-list of the directories you actually use
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763261
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
Looks good. One tiny issue, but you can correct it before import: %{_datadir}/z
is not owned by the package. Changing the files section to this will fix that:
%files
%{_datadir}/z
%{_mandir}/man1/z.1*
XXX APPROVED XXX
--
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 1763597] Review Request: python-graph-tool - Efficient network analysis tool written in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763597 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(sanjay.ankur@gmai | |l.com) | --- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Could be a fedora-review thing. The spec should be correct: parses fine with `rpmspec -P ./python-graph-tool.spec` I've got fedora-review-0.7.3-1.fc31.noarch here and it seemed to go through the process and generate the review.txt template here: $ fedora-review -n python-graph-tool -p --no-build INFO: Processing local files: python-graph-tool INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : Local files in /home/asinha/Documents/02_Code/01_others/fedora-new-packages/python-graph-tool/RPMS INFO: --> SRPM url: file:///home/asinha/Documents/02_Code/01_others/fedora-new-packages/python-graph-tool/RPMS/python-graph-tool-2.29-1.fc32.src.rpm INFO: --> Spec url: file:///home/asinha/Documents/02_Code/01_others/fedora-new-packages/python-graph-tool/RPMS/python-graph-tool.spec INFO: Using review directory: /home/asinha/Documents/02_Code/01_others/fedora-new-packages/python-graph-tool/RPMS/review-python-graph-tool WARNING: Package python-graph-tool-debuginfo-2.29-1.fc31 not built WARNING: Package python-graph-tool-debugsource-2.29-1.fc31 not built WARNING: No cache found for /home/asinha/Documents/02_Code/01_others/fedora-new-packages/python-graph-tool/RPMS/review-python-graph-tool/upstream/graph-tool-2.29.tar.bz2, downloading anyway. INFO: Downloading (Source0): https://downloads.skewed.de/graph-tool/graph-tool-2.29.tar.bz2 INFO: Running checks and generating report INFO: Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic, Python WARNING: Illegal return from /usr/share/fedora-review/scripts/generic-large-docs.sh, code 80, output: stdout:Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. stderr:files over 4GB not supported by cpio, use rpm2archive instead INFO: ExclusiveArch dependency checking disabled, enable with EXARCH flag Review template in: /home/asinha/Documents/02_Code/01_others/fedora-new-packages/python-graph-tool/RPMS/review-python-graph-tool/review.txt fedora-review is automated tool, but *YOU* are responsible for manually reviewing the results and finishing the review. Do not just copy-paste the results without understanding them. (Not entirely sure what the warning is about) The numthreads etc is a hack to try and use more threads with %make_build if we get a good builder (since there's no way to choose a good builder). I can remove that bit for the review and add it later before building if that's OK? The srpm from the koji scratch build will differ from this new srpm, though. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1763261] Review Request: z - Maintains a jump-list of the directories you actually use
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763261 --- Comment #2 from Ben Cotton --- Updated with suggested changes: Spec URL: https://bcotton.fedorapeople.org/z/z.spec SRPM URL: https://bcotton.fedorapeople.org/z/z-1.11-1.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 1763597] Review Request: python-graph-tool - Efficient network analysis tool written in Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763597
Ben Cotton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(sanjay.ankur@gmai
||l.com)
--- Comment #1 from Ben Cotton ---
I'm getting this error running fedora-review:
INFO: Processing local files: python-graph-tool-2.29-1.fc31.src.rpm
INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : Local files in
/home/bcotton/fedora/packages/python-graph-tool
INFO: --> SRPM url:
file:///home/bcotton/fedora/packages/python-graph-tool/python-graph-tool-2.29-1.fc31.src.rpm
INFO: Using review directory:
/home/bcotton/fedora/packages/python-graph-tool/python-graph-tool
error: parse error in expression
error:
/home/bcotton/fedora/packages/python-graph-tool/python-graph-tool/srpm-unpacked/python-graph-tool.spec:89:
bad %if condition
ERROR: "Can't parse specfile: can't parse specfile\n" (logs in
/home/bcotton/.cache/fedora-review.log)
Exception ignored in:
AttributeError: '_Null' object has no attribute 'flush'
This is the line in question:
%if 0%{numthreads} < 0%{_smp_build_ncpus}
Not sure if this is an F30-vs-31 difference or if it's something else.
--
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 1763931] Review Request: apt - Debian's commandline package manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763931 --- Comment #2 from Sergio Monteiro Basto --- Neal, I wasn't aware of your package . I see that 1.7.x change to ninja builds ... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1760617] Review Request: mmc - A GPU mesh-based Monte Carlo photon simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617 --- Comment #18 from Qianqian Fang --- @Ankur your points are taken - I have no objection to the current policy regarding bundling: if a system library already exists and it makes sense to dynamically link to it to avoid duplication, but embedding open-source codes/units in a larger project is also a very common practice and there are even dedicated tools to facilitate such use (such as git submodule, or header-only libraries). I understand your standing point of pushing reusable libraries in the context of building a healthy, modular and dynamic distribution/software environment, but as a software developer and distributor, I also have to pay extensive attention to 1) portability - i.e. to ensure smooth/easy software compilation not only on a specific distribution, but other platforms including Windows/Mac, 2) stability - including both forward and backward compatibility that are independent to external library interface changes, 3) performance - some of the libraries, such as sse_math and SFMT, are primarily used for their "inline" functions that are important for the software performance/speed, unless the library was specifically coded to ensure inlined functions, moving towards dynamic linking will likely result in speed loss. again, your points were loud and clear, but my assessment, as an upstream author and packger, is that the suggestion for decoupling the embedded libraries for separate packages and dynamic link with those will require a lot more work but no clear benefit (or even detrimental in terms of speed) for the software itself. So, I prefer to move forward in the current package/source code settings. Regarding the suggested "Provides: bundled(...)" line, I just want to make sure - this package neither compiles nor installs private copies of separate library files for sse_math/sfmt/json; it only statically compiles/links with them in our mmc/mmc.mex binaries. No one could directly call the functions in these embedded libraries from the generated binaries (mmc/mmc.mex). In this case, is a "Provide" directive still appropriate? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1694366] Review Request: python-pre-commit - Framework for managing and maintaining multi-language pre-commit hooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694366 Artem changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(ego.cordatus@gmai | |l.com) | --- Comment #4 from Artem --- Sure. Apologize, it required many python packages which was not packaged when i am first time tried to build it. < 2 days. -- 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 1764271] New: Review Request: kitty - Cross-platform, fast, feature full, GPU based terminal emulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764271 Bug ID: 1764271 Summary: Review Request: kitty - Cross-platform, fast, feature full, GPU based terminal emulator 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/kitty-terminal/fedora-31-x86_64/01068154-kitty/kitty.spec SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/atim/kitty-terminal/fedora-31-x86_64/01068154-kitty/kitty-0.14.6-2.fc31.src.rpm Description: - Offloads rendering to the GPU for lower system load and buttery smooth scrolling. Uses threaded rendering to minimize input latency. - Supports all modern terminal features: graphics (images), unicode, true-color, OpenType ligatures, mouse protocol, focus tracking, bracketed paste and several new terminal protocol extensions. - Supports tiling multiple terminal windows side by side in different layouts without needing to use an extra program like tmux. - Can be controlled from scripts or the shell prompt, even over SSH. - Has a framework for Kittens, small terminal programs that can be used to extend kitty's functionality. For example, they are used for Unicode input, Hints and Side-by-side diff. - Supports startup sessions which allow you to specify the window/tab layout, working directories and programs to run on startup. - Cross-platform: kitty works on Linux and macOS, but because it uses only OpenGL for rendering, it should be trivial to port to other Unix-like platforms. - Allows you to open the scrollback buffer in a separate window using arbitrary programs of your choice. This is useful for browsing the history comfortably in a pager or editor. - Has multiple copy/paste buffers, like vim. Fedora Account System Username: atim -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1694366] Review Request: python-pre-commit - Framework for managing and maintaining multi-language pre-commit hooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1694366 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||AwaitingSubmitter Flags||needinfo?(ego.cordatus@gmai ||l.com) --- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok --- Can we please move this forward? -- 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 1763931] Review Request: apt - Debian's commandline package manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763931 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ngomp...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa --- I'm in the process of preparing APT 1.9.x to be packaged, so I'd rather close this and open the review when I'm ready. I last tracked on APT 1.7.x with apt-dpkg: https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/home:Pharaoh_Atem:APT/apt-dpkg/apt-dpkg.spec?expand=1 I'm working on APT 1.9.x update 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 1758293] Review Request: jboss-logging-tools - JBoss Logging I18n Annotation Processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758293 Dinesh Prasanth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-10-22 14:20:27 --- Comment #13 from Dinesh Prasanth --- Closing this since jboss-logging-tools is now built and available in rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1402228 -- 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 1529824] Review Request: awx - AWX, Ansible Management GUI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529824 --- Comment #19 from Xavier Bachelot --- And also drop empty and unneeded anyway %clean section. -- 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 1529824] Review Request: awx - AWX, Ansible Management GUI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529824
--- Comment #18 from Xavier Bachelot ---
According to what I read in the specfile and a bit of correction in the
packages names, I think the list of missing deps in F31 is not that big. The
list might not be fully accurate, but here's what I think is missing and needs
to be packaged:
python3-azure-common
python3-azure-keyvault
python3-azure-nspkg
python3-build
python3-channels
python3-daphne
python3-django-auth-ldap
python3-django-crum
python3-django-extensions
python3-django-oauth-toolkit
python3-django-pglocks
python3-django-polymorphic
python3-django-solo
python3-django-taggit
python3-djangorest-framework-yaml
python3-irc
python3-jaraco-collections
python3-jaraco-itertools
python3-jaraco-logging
python3-jaraco-stream
python3-jaraco-text
python3-pygerduty
python3-logstash
python3-social-auth-app-django
The specfile itself needs some work:
- Specfile should be named awx.spec (or ansible-awx.spec, see below)
- I am not convinced the package should be named ansible-awx. I'd go for plain
awx.
- Use %global rather than %define
- Remove %define debug_package %{nil}
- Remove %define _prefix /opt/awx
- No need to redefine %{_mandir}
- Remove %global __os_install_post %{nil}
- Replace /var/lib, /var/log, /etc/, /usr/bin, /usr/share, etc... by the
corresponding macros
- Reword Summary to actually be helpful
- Full URL for Source0
- Full URL or useful comment for all the other SxurceX
- Why all the %if 0%{el7} ?
- Drop Group: tag
- Drop BuildRoot:
- Drop Vendor:
- Drop Prefix:
- Why disable the rpm dependency generator ?
- Rewrite %description to be useful. Just the Summary: is not enough and is
useless as is anyway, see above.
- Use macros where possible (awx --> %{name}, 8.0.0.0 --> %{version})
- Virtual env is a no go.
- /opt is a no-go.
- "cp %{_sourcedir}/nginx.conf.example ./" and similar lines looks dubious to
me. Timestamp needs to be preserved. Use 'install -p %{sourceX}
/path/to/dest/file' (or at least "cp -a").
- Be consistant in usage of %{buildroot} vs $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. The former is the
preferred form nowadays.
- Make sure all directories deployed are owned by either the package or a
dependency. For example, /var/lib/awx/ is unowned.
- %config should be %config(noreplace).
- Missing %license.
- %changelog entries are both invalid and not very legible:
- Add the release
- Each entry needs at least one description line below the date.
- Add a whiteline between each entry.
- And probably lost more, but addressing at least some of the above should
allow for a clearer view on the remaining fixes...
--
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 1764175] Review Request: Elements - A C++/Python build framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764175 --- Comment #1 from Alejandro Alvarez --- rpmlint output: 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Build on Fedora 30: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=38480829 Installed on a Fedora 30, tested compiling a project that relies on Elements, and by running few provided commands: CreateElementsProject, AddElementsModule, AddCppClass, AddCppProgram, and compiling the resulting project. Note: for this commands to work, the environment ELEMENTS_AUX_PATH=/usr/share/auxdir has to be set. -- 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 1764175] New: Review Request: Elements - A C++/Python build framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764175 Bug ID: 1764175 Summary: Review Request: Elements - A C++/Python build framework Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: a.alvarezayl...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://github.com/astrorama/copr/blob/master/Elements/Elements.spec SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/836/38480836/Elements-5.8-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: A C++ base framework for the Euclid Software. Fedora Account System Username: aalvarez SExtractor2 is part of Fedora (1). SourceXtractor (2) is the new generation, written in C++. However, SourceXtractor depends on this library in order to be built, so I am proposing this rpm as part of an effort to get it into Fedora. (1) https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/sextractor (2) https://github.com/astrorama/sextractorxx (rename pending) -- 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 1659709] Review Request: dymo-cups-drivers - DYMO LabelWriter Drivers for CUPS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1659709 Andrew Bauer changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(zonexpertconsulti | |n...@outlook.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 1759883] Review Request: dolfin - FEniCS computational backend and problem solving environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759883
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
Looks good. A few issues, but not blockers. Please fix them before the import.
(Please remember to add these packages to neuro-sig after import too).
APPROVED
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Cosmetic: mixed use of space in tabs, please use one for consistency.
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
^
The mirrors don't seem to have the required deps yet.
- if only the -doc subpackage is installed, %{_datadir}/%{name} is not owned by
anything. I guess also make the -doc subpackage own it?
- Please use the directory macros: %{_bindir} instead of /usr/bin etc.
- There are headers in the -doc package, but I assume they're simply there for
documentation?
- The Requires: on the non-devel package is written differently than in the
guidelines. Please double-check.
- The version-release string in the changelog is incomplete (rpmlint caught it)
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required.
Note: Sources not installed
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
^ Tested on the koji scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=38473863
[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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/dolfin
^
When -doc is installed only, this is unowned.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
^ Verified in koji scratch build log, e.g.:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3867/38473867/build.log
[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.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
^
Please use the directory macros
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[Bug 1759883] Review Request: dolfin - FEniCS computational backend and problem solving environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759883 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sanjay.an...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Putting it through fedora review 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 1529824] Review Request: awx - AWX, Ansible Management GUI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529824 --- Comment #17 from Martin Juhl --- Sorry: https://awx.wiki/repository/ansible-awx-8.0.0.0-1.el7.src.rpm Two things are missing right now in the SPEC: 1. Source is prebuilt, so is included as binary, but this should be pretty simple to do.. 2. Dependency list is not complete.. I'm just not sure that this will work with the version available in EPEL, but it's worth a try.. I will see if I can get the time to fix the above.. -- 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 1529824] Review Request: awx - AWX, Ansible Management GUI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529824 --- Comment #16 from Xavier Bachelot --- (In reply to Martin Juhl from comment #15) > Everything is in: > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mrmeee/ansible-awx/builds/ > A stable direct link to the spec would be useful. Searching in copr is not straight forward and also the builds are getting dropped so the spec file links goes 404. > I have already packaged everything.. right now they are utilizing Software > Collections.. > > So I wonder if it would be easier to wait until I complete support for EL8 > and Modules/Streams? The awx package needs to go to Fedora Rawhide first before being branched for EPEL. I expect a lot of the python modules to be already available in Fedora. Any missing module will require a separate package review. Make them block this bug so we have a clear view of what's missing, as Rathann suggested above. -- 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 1529824] Review Request: awx - AWX, Ansible Management GUI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529824 --- Comment #15 from Martin Juhl --- Everything is in: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mrmeee/ansible-awx/builds/ I have already packaged everything.. right now they are utilizing Software Collections.. So I wonder if it would be easier to wait until I complete support for EL8 and Modules/Streams? -- 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 1447517] Review Request: ddcutil - control monitor settings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447517 sanford rockowitz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2019-10-22 10:10:29 --- Comment #19 from sanford rockowitz --- Have just received another notice for this bug report. Per previous message I'm setting the status to closed. -- 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 1529824] Review Request: awx - AWX, Ansible Management GUI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529824 --- Comment #14 from Xavier Bachelot --- Can you link to an updated spec file and SRPM ? Also, do you have a list of needed python dependencies, both available and still to be packaged ? I appreciate building all the needed dependencies will likely be a long journey, but this is the way to go. -- 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 1760617] Review Request: mmc - A GPU mesh-based Monte Carlo photon simulator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617 --- Comment #17 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- (In reply to Qianqian Fang from comment #16) > to add another clarification - mmc uses these libraries internally for file > IO of specific inputs and computations purposes, and has no public interface > to call these libraries externally and allow to use them individually. You > can treat them as private/internal functions (compiled in a single > GPL-licensed binary), not a way to encapsulate/ship the libraries per se to > allow reuse - from this perspective, I felt that calling it "bundling" is > not exactly accurate. Replying to this first. No, bundling simply refers to "not using system versions of libraries". How you use them, or whether or not they are made available by your package is not a factor here. The point is simply that you are using a private version of these libraries. The guidelines should clarify this: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling Now on to the second part: (In reply to Qianqian Fang from comment #15) > @Ankur > > I agree with you that it makes software more modular and scalable if all > dependencies can be built as separate packages. However, I think the > scenario here is slightly different. No, again---this is not why bundling is avoided. Avoiding bundling simply results in software being more modular. The main issue we are trying to avoid is explained better with the help of an example, mmc here: - mmc is bundling SFMT - The current release of SFMT is 5.1 from 2017 Now, since mmc is bundling this SFMT version, as SFMT moves forward with bugfixes/optimisations/enhancements, mmc does not receive any of these. In fact, since we don't know the version of SFMT in use in mmc (I can't find any version information in the code somehow), we cannot say for sure if the SFMT developers are still supporting it. So, if a user finds a bug in the bundled version of SFMT, who then looks into it? If mmc modifies SFMT, then you have effectively forked an older version of SFMT and now responsible for maintaining it---separate from SFMT upstream. > > the 4 external components that mmc depends on, namely, sse_math, waitmex, > cjson and SFMT, are extremely lightweight units, and are designed primarily > for embedded use. For example > > - sse_math is a header-only single-unit header file > - waitmex and cJSON are both single-unit (waitmex.c/.h, cJSON.c/.h) libraries > - SFMT is also a single unit (SFMT.c with multiple header files) library > > if you search on github, the majority of the appearance of SFMT are for > embedded use, similar to mmc, > > https://github.com/search?q=SFMT.h=Code That does not make it the right practice from a software development point of view---and the point of the review process is to ensure that we follow software development best practices while adding software to Fedora. (A goal of the NeuroFedora group is also to try and push these software development standards upstream to academics who write software but may not necessarily be trained in software development.) > > same for cJSON > > https://github.com/search?q=cjson=Code > > in fact, the embedded use of these utilities are seen as an advantage by the > authors of these tools, and they intentionally designed the unit as portable > and lightweight as possible to enable such use, and also to ensure such by > using a more permissive license (BSD, MIT, ZLIB). If that's the case, then these developers are also not following suggested software development best practices. It is unfortunate. Embedding libraries has more disadvantages than advantages. > > In a way, I am permitted, by the respective licenses, to convert each of the > cited units into GPL and place a uniform license disclaimers in each of the > units, so that it looks more like an integrated/single-licensed source-code > tree, but I prefer not to do that because I have to make such edits again if > I want to sync some of the units to new releases. I also thought it would > give upstream authors more visibility by keeping their original disclaimers > in the source codes; but I did not expect this visibility to turn into a > restriction for me to distribute the final software in the license that I > desire (which is known to be compliant with the upstream licenses). The licensing is fine. > > > again, I am not against packaging these lightweight libraries separately (I > am happy to help), but it is not as beneficial in the case of mmc. Because > these libraries are generally not available even in open-source > distributions, not mention about windows/mac where the majority of mmc users > use, to make mmc dependent to such libraries makes the code hard to compile > for a large portion of my existing users. I will also have to deal with > future changes of the API interfaces and data structures that may happen > independent to my codes. But isn't this a good thing? As the developer, don't you
[Bug 1529824] Review Request: awx - AWX, Ansible Management GUI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1529824 Martin Juhl changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(m...@rtinjuhl.dk)| --- Comment #13 from Martin Juhl --- Xavier Yes, but I'm not sure how we can make this happen... There are just too many dependencies (100-150) that has to included first.. https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mrmeee/ansible-awx/builds/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
