[Bug 1823091] Review Request: python-freeipa - Lightweight FreeIPA client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823091 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-81f9f75f04 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-81f9f75f04 -- 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 1823091] Review Request: python-freeipa - Lightweight FreeIPA client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823091 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-217b6928cc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-217b6928cc -- 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 1823091] Review Request: python-freeipa - Lightweight FreeIPA client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823091 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-06730065a6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-06730065a6 -- 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 1823091] Review Request: python-freeipa - Lightweight FreeIPA client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823091 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-a729ac8728 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-a729ac8728 -- 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 1821120] Review Request: wlogout - wayland based logout menu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821120 Lyes Saadi changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Lyes Saadi --- Package Approved! Thank you as well for your patience :). -- 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 1821120] Review Request: wlogout - wayland based logout menu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821120 --- Comment #9 from Bob Hepple --- Hi Lyes, Thanks for your patience and keen eyes. New build below. I'm going to have to re-read and reassess my understanding on that ownership thing. SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/wlogout/fedora-31-x86_64/01344425-wlogout/wlogout.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/wef/wlogout/fedora-31-x86_64/01344425-wlogout/wlogout-1.1.1-5.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 1795461] Review Request: practrand - Software package for the Randon number generation & testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795461 Jiri Hladky changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(hladky.jiri@gmail | |.com) | --- Comment #7 from Jiri Hladky --- Hello Ankur, I'm still waiting for the author to release the new version with some changes needed to package as the rpm. He is working on a new feature. Let me ping him if he can estimate a release date. Cheers, Jirka -- 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 1824467] Review Request: freeopcua - Open Source C++ OPC-UA Server and Client Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824467 --- Comment #9 from Alexander Ploumistos --- Thank you for the explanation and thanks again for the review. 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 1824467] Review Request: freeopcua - Open Source C++ OPC-UA Server and Client Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824467 --- Comment #8 from Till Hofmann --- Thank you for reviewing! (In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #5) > While we're waiting for the scratch build to complete to wrap up the review, > I have a couple of questions. > > Do you intend to package the python bindings at a later time or not at all? > I know in which cases we are required by the packaging guidelines to remove > stuff from a source tarball, but are features like that elective? I don't think there is any guideline that says that you need to build all features of a package. Usually, I add them if I need them or if someone requests them. It also depends on how much work is needed. That being said, I'll look into building the bindings for freeopcua. > > I know how push and pop are used in Perl arrays, but I've never understood > how they work in a spec file and what their purpose is; if the explanation > won't take up too much of your time, could you please explain how it works? It's quite simple actually. `pushd dir` is like `cd dir`, except that it remember the directory you came from and pushed it onto a stack. `popd` pops from the stack and `cd`s into the first item of the stack. Using pushd/popd here is not really necessary, I just got used to it, because it allows switching directories in a script without getting lost. -- 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 1824467] Review Request: freeopcua - Open Source C++ OPC-UA Server and Client Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824467 --- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/freeopcua -- 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 1824467] Review Request: freeopcua - Open Source C++ OPC-UA Server and Client Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824467
Alexander Ploumistos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
Scratch build completed successfully:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43607707
The package is approved!
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General
Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3 or later)",
"*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "GNU Lesser General
Public License (v3)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "*No
copyright* Apache License", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)",
"Apache License (v2.0)". 269 files have unknown license.
All of the other licenses belong to the testsuite, which is not packaged.
[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.
[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]: 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
[Bug 1824467] Review Request: freeopcua - Open Source C++ OPC-UA Server and Client Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824467 --- Comment #5 from Alexander Ploumistos --- While we're waiting for the scratch build to complete to wrap up the review, I have a couple of questions. Do you intend to package the python bindings at a later time or not at all? I know in which cases we are required by the packaging guidelines to remove stuff from a source tarball, but are features like that elective? I know how push and pop are used in Perl arrays, but I've never understood how they work in a spec file and what their purpose is; if the explanation won't take up too much of your time, could you please explain how it works? -- 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 810049] Review Request: netbeans-ide - Netbeans Integrated Development Environment (IDE)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810049 Priya Sharma changed: What|Removed |Added CC||priyaashrm...@gmail.com Flags|needinfo?(puntogil@libero.i |needinfo?(puntogil@libero.i |t) |t) --- Comment #105 from Priya Sharma --- http://lkoescortsservice.com/ -- 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 1825361] Review Request: kanshi - Dynamic display configuration for sway
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825361 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-e31daa4785 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-e31daa4785 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e31daa4785 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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 1826326] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail - GNOME Shell indicator for new and unread mail using Bubblemail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826326 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-394123e1f0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-394123e1f0 -- 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 1826326] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail - GNOME Shell indicator for new and unread mail using Bubblemail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826326 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-98a1412639 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-98a1412639 -- 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 1824467] Review Request: freeopcua - Open Source C++ OPC-UA Server and Client Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824467 --- Comment #4 from Till Hofmann --- Spec URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/freeopcua/freeopcua.spec SRPM URL: https://thofmann.fedorapeople.org/freeopcua/freeopcua-0-0.9.20200131.da2b76f.fc33.src.rpm * Use system spdlog * Remove empty docs * FSF address PR: https://github.com/FreeOpcUa/freeopcua/pull/355 -- 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 1825385] Review Request: odhcp6c - OpenWrt DHCPv6 client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825385 --- Comment #4 from Juan Orti Alcaine --- New version: Spec URL: https://jorti.fedorapeople.org/odhcp6c/odhcp6c.spec SRPM URL: https://jorti.fedorapeople.org/odhcp6c/odhcp6c-0-0.4.20200416gitf575351.fc32.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 1826326] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail - GNOME Shell indicator for new and unread mail using Bubblemail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826326 --- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail -- 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 1824467] Review Request: freeopcua - Open Source C++ OPC-UA Server and Client Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824467 --- Comment #3 from Till Hofmann --- (In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #2) > (In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #1) > > fedora-review complained about a LICENSE file that was not declared with the > > macro and it turns out that it belongs to spdlog, which is bundled together. > > We already have spdlog in the repos, do you need to have the bundled version > > for some reason? > > Darn touchpads, I posted it by accident. Continuing: > > > By the way, if it needs to be bundled, then I guess you ought to have both > licenses, LGPLv3+ and MIT and a comment explaining why that is. Thanks for pointing out the bundled spdlog, somehow I forgot about it. But I'm working on a patch to unbundle. I'll update when I'm done. > > > There's also the issue with the address of the FSF, which should be > corrected upstream. I'll file a PR. > > > Is there a reason for not including and running the testsuite (which would > add a whole bunch of licenses) in %check? Yes, some of them fail, even in the upstream CI pipeline. > > > The NEWS and Changelog files are empty and rpmlint complains: > freeopcua.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/freeopcua/ChangeLog > freeopcua.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/freeopcua/NEWS > > Since they serve no purpose, they should be eliminated, until upstream > decides to add something to them. Will do. > > > The source URL is giving me a 500 Internal Server Error, but I think GitHub > is glitching at the moment. > > > Kudos on submitting the patches upstream and soname versioning. -- 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 1826439] New: Review Request: libvma - LD_PRELOAD-able library with standard BSD sockets API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826439 Bug ID: 1826439 Summary: Review Request: libvma - LD_PRELOAD-able library with standard BSD sockets API Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: igor.ivanov...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/igor-ivanov/libvma/pr/fedora-package/fedora/libvma.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/igor-ivanov/libvma/pr/fedora-package/fedora/libvma-9.0.2-1.src.rpm Description: A library for boosting TCP and UDP traffic (over RDMA hardware) Fedora Account System Username: iivanov This is a re-review request to revive a retired package. koji scratch build for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43603199 fc31: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43602614 fc32: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43602829 fc33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43602945 -- 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 1826326] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail - GNOME Shell indicator for new and unread mail using Bubblemail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826326 --- Comment #7 from Alexander Ploumistos --- Thank you very much Till! -- 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 1795461] Review Request: practrand - Software package for the Randon number generation & testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1795461 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(hladky.jiri@gmail ||.com) --- Comment #6 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Hello Jirka, Any progress here? Cheers, Ankur -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1824467] Review Request: freeopcua - Open Source C++ OPC-UA Server and Client Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824467 --- Comment #2 from Alexander Ploumistos --- (In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #1) > fedora-review complained about a LICENSE file that was not declared with the > macro and it turns out that it belongs to spdlog, which is bundled together. > We already have spdlog in the repos, do you need to have the bundled version > for some reason? Darn touchpads, I posted it by accident. Continuing: By the way, if it needs to be bundled, then I guess you ought to have both licenses, LGPLv3+ and MIT and a comment explaining why that is. There's also the issue with the address of the FSF, which should be corrected upstream. Is there a reason for not including and running the testsuite (which would add a whole bunch of licenses) in %check? The NEWS and Changelog files are empty and rpmlint complains: freeopcua.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/freeopcua/ChangeLog freeopcua.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/freeopcua/NEWS Since they serve no purpose, they should be eliminated, until upstream decides to add something to them. The source URL is giving me a 500 Internal Server Error, but I think GitHub is glitching at the moment. Kudos on submitting the patches upstream and soname versioning. -- 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 1826355] Review Request: python-dicttoxml - Simple library to convert a Python dictionary or other native data type into a valid XML string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826355
Nils Philippsen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Nils Philippsen ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= 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: "GNU Lesser General Public License", "GPL (v2)", "Unknown or
generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/nils/devel/reviews/fedora/1826355-python-
dicttoxml/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: 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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations
[Bug 1824467] Review Request: freeopcua - Open Source C++ OPC-UA Server and Client Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824467 --- Comment #1 from Alexander Ploumistos --- fedora-review complained about a LICENSE file that was not declared with the macro and it turns out that it belongs to spdlog, which is bundled together. We already have spdlog in the repos, do you need to have the bundled version for some reason? -- 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 1826326] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail - GNOME Shell indicator for new and unread mail using Bubblemail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826326
Till Hofmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Till Hofmann ---
Sounds good, package approved!
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later)". 48 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/thofmann/fedora/reviews/review-gnome-shell-extension-
bubblemail/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 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.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from
[Bug 1826355] Review Request: python-dicttoxml - Simple library to convert a Python dictionary or other native data type into a valid XML string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826355 Vipul Siddharth changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://siddharthvipul1.fedorapeople.org/rpms/dicttoxml/python-dicttoxml.spec SRPM URL: https://siddharthvipul1.fedorapeople.org/rpms/dicttoxml/python-dicttoxml-1.7.4-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: Simple library to convert a Python dictionary or other native data type into a valid XML string Fedora Account System Username: siddharthvipul1 koji build link: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43589113 -- 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 1826326] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail - GNOME Shell indicator for new and unread mail using Bubblemail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826326 --- Comment #5 from Alexander Ploumistos --- Well, the only packaged version is the one I am submitting now and hopefully the next one will be a 1.x release. Upstream has been very cooperative and we've spent the past weeks debugging Bubblemail together, so I'm fairly confident they will revise the versioning scheme. Should they get carried away and publish e.g. a 0.8 release, I will have to resort to an Epoch directive, or wait for the revision. -- 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 1826355] Review Request: python-dicttoxml - Simple library to convert a Python dictionary or other native data type into a valid XML string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826355 Vipul Siddharth changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://siddharthvipul1.fedorapeople.org/rpms/dicttoxml/python-dicttoxml.spec SRPM URL: https://siddharthvipul1.fedorapeople.org/rpms/dicttoxml/python-dicttoxml-1.7.4-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: Simple library to convert a Python dictionary or other native data type into a valid XML string Fedora Account System Username: siddharthvipul koji build link: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43589113 -- 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 1826326] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail - GNOME Shell indicator for new and unread mail using Bubblemail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826326 --- Comment #4 from Till Hofmann --- So how are you going to make sure that the versioning is correct downstream before this is fixed upstream? -- 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 1826355] Review Request: python-dicttoxml - Simple library to convert a Python dictionary or other native data type into a valid XML string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826355 Nils Philippsen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||nphil...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nphil...@redhat.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- 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 1826355] New: Review Request: python-dicttoxml - Simple library to convert a Python dictionary or other native data type into a valid XML string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826355 Bug ID: 1826355 Summary: Review Request: python-dicttoxml - Simple library to convert a Python dictionary or other native data type into a valid XML string. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: siddharthvip...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://siddharthvipul1.fedorapeople.org/rpms/dicttoxml/python-dicttoxml.spec SRPM URL: https://siddharthvipul1.fedorapeople.org/rpms/dicttoxml/python-dicttoxml-1.7.4-1.fc30.src.rpm Description: Simple library to convert a Python dictionary or other native data type into a valid XML string Fedora Account System Username: siddharthvipul koji build link: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43589113 -- 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 1826326] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail - GNOME Shell indicator for new and unread mail using Bubblemail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826326 --- Comment #3 from Alexander Ploumistos --- (In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #1) > The upstream versioning stream definitely looks broken, they assume that > 0.61 < 0.7. > > Maybe this should be changed downstream to 0.6.1? Of course, proper upstream > versioning would be ideal. I know, so far normal releases have been numbered 0.x, development releases 0.x9 and bugfix releases 0.x1. I told them to switch to semantic versioning or something that makes sense starting with the 1.0 release. -- 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 1826326] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail - GNOME Shell indicator for new and unread mail using Bubblemail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826326 --- Comment #2 from Till Hofmann --- (In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #1) > The upstream versioning stream definitely looks broken I meant upstream versioning *scheme* of course. -- 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 1826326] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail - GNOME Shell indicator for new and unread mail using Bubblemail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826326 --- Comment #1 from Till Hofmann --- The upstream versioning stream definitely looks broken, they assume that 0.61 < 0.7. Maybe this should be changed downstream to 0.6.1? Of course, proper upstream versioning would be ideal. -- 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 1826326] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail - GNOME Shell indicator for new and unread mail using Bubblemail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826326 Till Hofmann changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||thofm...@fedoraproject.org Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|thofm...@fedoraproject.org Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value 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 1826326] New: Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail - GNOME Shell indicator for new and unread mail using Bubblemail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826326 Bug ID: 1826326 Summary: Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail - GNOME Shell indicator for new and unread mail using Bubblemail Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: alex.ploumis...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail/gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail.spec SRPM URL: https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail/gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail-0.71-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: gnome-shell-extension-bubblemail relies on the Bubblemail service to display notifications in GNOME shell about new and unread messages in local (mbox, Maildir) and remote (POP3, IMAP) mailboxes. Fedora Account System Username: alexpl koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43597304 -- 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 1826318] Review Request: meshbird - Distributed private networking
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826318 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1826308, 1826315 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826308 [Bug 1826308] Review Request: golang-github-songgao-water - TUN/TAP library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826315 [Bug 1826315] Review Request: golang-github-alexflint-arg - Struct-based argument parsing -- 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 1826315] Review Request: golang-github-alexflint-arg - Struct-based argument parsing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826315 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1826318 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826318 [Bug 1826318] Review Request: meshbird - Distributed private networking -- 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 1826308] Review Request: golang-github-songgao-water - TUN/TAP library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826308 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1826318 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826318 [Bug 1826318] Review Request: meshbird - Distributed private networking -- 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 1826318] New: Review Request: meshbird - Distributed private networking
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826318 Bug ID: 1826318 Summary: Review Request: meshbird - Distributed private networking 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/meshbird.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/meshbird-2.3-1.fc31.src.rpm Project URL: https://meshbird.com/ Description: Distributed private networking. Koji scratch build: fails due to missing dependencies rpmlint output: $ rpmlint meshbird-2.3-1.fc31.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint meshbird*.rpm meshbird.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary meshbird 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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 1826315] Review Request: golang-github-alexflint-arg - Struct-based argument parsing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826315 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1826313 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826313 [Bug 1826313] Review Request: golang-github-alexflint-scalar - Parsing library for string -- 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 1826313] Review Request: golang-github-alexflint-scalar - Parsing library for string
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826313 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1826315 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826315 [Bug 1826315] Review Request: golang-github-alexflint-arg - Struct-based argument parsing -- 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 1826315] New: Review Request: golang-github-alexflint-arg - Struct-based argument parsing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826315 Bug ID: 1826315 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-alexflint-arg - Struct-based argument parsing 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/golang-github-alexflint-arg.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/golang-github-alexflint-arg-1.3.0-1.fc31.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/alexflint/go-arg Description: Struct-based argument parsing in Go. Koji scratch build: fails due to missing dependency rpmlint output: $ rpmlint golang-github-alexflint-arg-1.3.0-1.fc31.src.rpm golang-github-alexflint-arg.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Struct -> Strict, Strut, Struck golang-github-alexflint-arg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Struct -> Strict, Strut, Struck golang-github-alexflint-arg.src: W: no-%build-section 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. $ rpmlint golang-github-alexflint-arg-devel-1.3.0-1.fc31.noarch.rpm golang-github-alexflint-arg-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Struct -> Strict, Strut, Struck golang-github-alexflint-arg-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Struct -> Strict, Strut, Struck golang-github-alexflint-arg-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/alexflint/go-arg/.goipath 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 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 1826313] New: Review Request: golang-github-alexflint-scalar - Parsing library for string
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826313 Bug ID: 1826313 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-alexflint-scalar - Parsing library for string 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/golang-github-alexflint-scalar.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/golang-github-alexflint-scalar-1.0.0-1.fc31.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/alexflint/go-scalar Description: Scalar is a library for parsing strings into arbitrary scalars (integers, floats, strings, booleans, etc). It is helpful for tasks such as parsing strings passed as environment variables or command line arguments. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43597431 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint golang-github-alexflint-scalar-1.0.0-1.fc31.src.rpm golang-github-alexflint-scalar.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US booleans -> boo leans, boo-leans, beanpoles golang-github-alexflint-scalar.src: W: no-%build-section 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint golang-github-alexflint-scalar-devel-1.0.0-1.fc31.noarch.rpm golang-github-alexflint-scalar-devel.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US booleans -> boo leans, boo-leans, beanpoles golang-github-alexflint-scalar-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/alexflint/go-scalar/.goipath 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 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 1826308] New: Review Request: golang-github-songgao-water - TUN/TAP library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826308 Bug ID: 1826308 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-songgao-water - TUN/TAP library 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/golang-github-songgao-water.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/golang-github-songgao-water-0-0.1.20200421git2b4b6d7.fc31.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/songgao/water Description: A simple TUN/TAP library written in native Go. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43597237 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint golang-github-songgao-water-0-0.1.20200421git2b4b6d7.fc31.src.rpm golang-github-songgao-water.src: W: no-%build-section 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint golang-github-songgao-water-devel-0-0.1.20200421git2b4b6d7.fc31.noarch.rpm golang-github-songgao-water-devel.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/gocode/src/github.com/songgao/water/.goipath 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 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 1826270] Review Request: perl-B-COW - Additional B helpers to check Copy On Write status
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826270
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Link ID||Github
||atoomic/B-COW/issues/1
--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar ---
The standalone spec file seems to be newer. I will use that for the review.
Url and Source0 addresses are usable. Ok.
A Source0 archive (SHA-256:
9c7de86542871bc0ac8e6b4f7363bba4f6c5cc07e06fadc51d3a78832fcfca89) is original.
Ok.
Summary verifed from lib/B/COW.pm. Ok.
Description verified from lib/B/COW.pm. Ok.
License verified from lib/B/COW.pm, Makefile.PL, LICENSE, COW.xs, and README.
Ok.
TODO: Use %{make_build} and %{make_install} macros.
All tests pass. Ok.
$ rpmlint perl-B-COW.spec ../SRPMS/perl-B-COW-0.003-2.fc33.src.rpm
../RPMS/x86_64/perl-B-COW-*
sh: /usr/bin/python2: No such file or directory
perl-B-COW.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US naïve -> nave, naive
perl-B-COW.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US naïve -> nave, naive
perl-B-COW.x86_64: E: library-not-linked-against-libc
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/B/COW/COW.so
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
rpmlint is Ok.
The link error is because of a weak __cxa_finalize symbol. Weak symbols do not
need to be fulfilled.
$ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-B-COW-0.003-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Apr 21 13:40
/usr/lib/.build-id
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Apr 21 13:40
/usr/lib/.build-id/c9
lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 57 Apr 21 13:40
/usr/lib/.build-id/c9/5e1f2c8a5362612b167e996167a8bab86a0327 ->
../../../../usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/B/COW/COW.so
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Apr 21 13:40
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/B
-rw-r--r--1 root root 3150 Apr 20 17:59
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/B/COW.pm
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Apr 21 13:40
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/B
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Apr 21 13:40
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/B/COW
-rwxr-xr-x1 root root15768 Apr 21 13:40
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/B/COW/COW.so
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Apr 21 13:40
/usr/share/doc/perl-B-COW
-rw-r--r--1 root root 336 Apr 20 17:59
/usr/share/doc/perl-B-COW/Changes
-rw-r--r--1 root root 371 Apr 20 17:59
/usr/share/doc/perl-B-COW/README
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Apr 20 17:59
/usr/share/doc/perl-B-COW/examples
-rw-r--r--1 root root 805 Apr 20 17:59
/usr/share/doc/perl-B-COW/examples/synopsis.pl
drwxr-xr-x2 root root0 Apr 21 13:40
/usr/share/licenses/perl-B-COW
-rw-r--r--1 root root18340 Apr 20 17:59
/usr/share/licenses/perl-B-COW/LICENSE
-rw-r--r--1 root root 2246 Apr 21 13:40
/usr/share/man/man3/B::COW.3pm.gz
A file layout and the permissions are Ok.
$ rpm -q --requires -p ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-B-COW-0.003-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm | sort
-f | uniq -c
1 libperl.so.5.30()(64bit)
1 libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
1 libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
1 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.30.2)
1 perl(base)
1 perl(Exporter)
1 perl(strict)
1 perl(warnings)
1 perl(XSLoader)
1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1
1 rtld(GNU_HASH)
Binary requires are Ok.
$ rpm -q --provides -p ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-B-COW-0.003-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm | sort
-f | uniq -c
1 perl(B::COW) = 0.003
1 perl-B-COW = 0.003-2.fc33
1 perl-B-COW(x86-64) = 0.003-2.fc33
Binary provides are Ok.
$ resolvedeps rawhide ../RPMS/x86_64/perl-B-COW-0.003-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm
Binary dependencies are resolvable. Ok.
FATAL: The package does not build in Fedora 33
(https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43596524) on big-endian
machines (https://github.com/atoomic/B-COW/issues/1).
Otherwise the package is in-line with Fedora and Perl packaging guidelines.
Resolution: NOT approved.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
[Bug 1826270] Review Request: perl-B-COW - Additional B helpers to check Copy On Write status
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826270 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||ppi...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ppi...@redhat.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value 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 1824467] Review Request: freeopcua - Open Source C++ OPC-UA Server and Client Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824467 Alexander Ploumistos changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||alex.ploumis...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|alex.ploumis...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value 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 1822971] Review Request: notcurses - character graphics and TUI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822971 --- Comment #19 from Nick Black --- Note: i used "mock" instead of "rpmbuild" this time, and am now getting "fc33" packages as opposed to the "fc32" i was seeing before. Makes sense, just pointing it 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 1826270] New: Review Request: perl-B-COW - Additional B helpers to check Copy On Write status
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826270 Bug ID: 1826270 Summary: Review Request: perl-B-COW - Additional B helpers to check Copy On Write status Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: p...@city-fan.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: http://subversion.city-fan.org/repos/cfo-repo/perl-B-COW/branches/fedora/perl-B-COW.spec SRPM URL: http://www.city-fan.org/~paul/extras/perl-B-COW/perl-B-COW-0.003-2.fc33.src.rpm Description: B::COW provides some naïve additional B helpers to check the Copy On Write (COW) status of one SvPV (a Perl string variable). A COWed SvPV is sharing its string (the PV) with other SvPVs. It's a (kind of) Read Only C string, which would be Copied On Write (COW). More than one SV can share the same PV, but when one PV needs to alter it, it would perform a copy of it, decreasing the COWREFCNT counter. One SV can then drop the COW flag when it's the only one holding a pointer to the PV. The COWREFCNT is stored at the end of the PV, after the null byte terminating the string. That value is limited to 255: when we reach 255, a new PV would be created. Fedora Account System Username: pghmcfc This package is needed for the test suite of perl-Clone 0.44. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1822971] Review Request: notcurses - character graphics and TUI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822971 --- Comment #18 from Nick Black --- [vps](0) $ sha256sum * 9f8dc946b25ebd2aa9213c1572d45e9c0764bf478a8d4ace336364a5ea00c431 build.log a58c41334e01cdeb4ce257649131dfbbe5b3dc58b915c6b29a7127ff7ba3492b hw_info.log b643b204abb1d82179dfa465274ad94eadebbf25c28472a041e4d4d8fe95e0f4 installed_pkgs.log ebb65500e37ad3cb89c2ef8f9774958d3c19f6d263dd659a78a2746939e3577f notcurses-1.3.2-2.fc33.src.rpm f9ce8a8151e491e4c39485c9c2f4195e1ada4ddb9dcff8cbb3dab9a010a6954f notcurses-1.3.2-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm 997584fe6d39e53e2bea37b5c9871b4595be9dd95a9fc42dd7102419f02083fd notcurses-debuginfo-1.3.2-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm 96365a593f0c7b3563a6ec7abc3adc683b48e27a51c0c9c3140b6c4c2b2e2006 notcurses-debugsource-1.3.2-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm fcde8eef5650847c1769f560733e415b285556a666f61fcb547107a9e188748d notcurses-devel-1.3.2-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm 189fc9968f0d24e4cf299533defc3a85cdfd665834b75e8589f7714c93f5a8db notcurses-static-1.3.2-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm 8f5025258f48842a510d3bb9e54d8ff7830a165fba7eee0822b3863c1eca34e6 python3-notcurses-1.3.2-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm c7d60859d954caa62f77eca599b31093579224f3ac798d5931f6bed5571ab645 python3-notcurses-debuginfo-1.3.2-2.fc33.x86_64.rpm 41f36b148e0d36b686430bfd35be58362a0b705a1ce422dd47f55e5801ca7ea1 root.log de713ba48b7416b43399dc54f855dedc2cf5f23c0bbbfba6cc0b67d3a593f2d7 state.log [vps](0) $ -- 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 1822971] Review Request: notcurses - character graphics and TUI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822971 --- Comment #17 from Nick Black --- Actually, right now we build without any multimedia capability, and thus *none* of the contents of data/ are installed. We just need to ensure they're not in the SRPM. That'll be satisfied by just grabbing the DFSG tarball. I should have a new spec+SRPM for you within the hour. -- 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 1822971] Review Request: notcurses - character graphics and TUI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822971
--- Comment #16 from Nick Black ---
> Not sure if these should be versioned like regular shared libraries. Check
> the Fedora packaging guidelines for Python modules.
Taking a step back, I'm having a difficult time imaging a use case that relies
on python cffi modules having a particular SONAME, but I'm no Python expert.
Taking another step back, setting an SONAME seems a polite thing to do in all
cases.
Tightening back in, I'm certain I can weave the necessary incantations through
to get an SONAME set...but I'm surprised that this isn't already being done by
some setuptools layer, or the Fedora Python packaging macros. I've been unable
to find firm Fedora guidance yet, save the lint complaint, but surely I'm not
the first person to be building a Python cffi module in Fedora, so I'm
proceeding under the assumption that the complaint is valid. I'll have this
resolved today, one way or the other.
> I guess the python_provide macro can be dropped?
Done.
> %check is not present due to -DUSE_TESTS=off. Another BuildRequire is
> necessary to enable tests, which I understand is coming in a later package
> review.
Correct. I'll be filing a spec+SRPM for the header-only C++ interface "doctest"
> Make it executable unless it shouldn't be.
Done (it should be). Thanks for the catch!
> Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Added. I removed the preexisting line, which lacked the %{?_isa} substitution.
Thanks for the catch!
> Need clarification on the files in data/.
See previous comment and upcoming specfile change.
> Recommend adding license information to each source and doc file.
Duly noted.
--
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 1807365] Review Request: nuspell - Free and open source C++ spell checking library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807365 --- Comment #12 from Pander --- Please ignore point 4) in my previous message, that is good as it is. -- 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 1822971] Review Request: notcurses - character graphics and TUI library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822971 Nick Black changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(d...@qemfd.net) | --- Comment #15 from Nick Black --- Regarding clarification of the multimedia in data/ (I just did this for the Debian package): In the upstream tarball, there's a lot of material which doesn't belong in a Linux distribution. There are sprites borrowed from NES games, etc. I do not intend to include these in either the SRPM or RPMs. I thus need to change the specfile to reference the DFSG tarball. For those unaware, this stands for Debian Free Software Guidelines, and I believe the set of files excluded for DFSG-compatibility to be the same set of files that ought be excluded on Fedora. I will change the specfile to reflect this. Thanks for the catch! Regarding the few files that will remain, the README.source from our Debian package explains things best: --- The upstream tarball, as automatically put together by GitHub upon a tagging event, is unsuitable for distribution in Debian due to several DFSG-unfree multimedia, and one DFSG-unfree source file (src/demo/jungle.c includes an unfree image as a blob). Generating the DFSG-compliant source file can be performed via e.g.: uscan --repack --compression xz -v uscan gets its list of excluded files from debian/copyright. The multimedia which *does* remain is all Free media created for this project by the project authors, and is licensed under Apache 2.0 like the rest of the project. "Source" for these multimedia is included in the source tarball's data/ directory as .xcf (GIMP) and .osp (OpenShot) files. The former were made using GIMP 2.10 as packaged by Debian, the latter using OpenShot 2.50 as built from upstream source, and Blender 2.82 as packaged by Debian. These are the preferred forms for editing the included media. The final media remains included, and installed in the binary packages, because building/rendering is computationally intensive and somewhat brittle. --- So I'd like to do the same thing for Fedora. The SRPM will contain both the rendered media, and the source necessary to generate them using Free tools. The binary RPMs will only install the rendered versions. Rendering the media will not be part of a typical build, and indeed is not currently automated. Fedora doesn't, so far as I know, *require* "preferred editable form" for multimedia, just that it can be redistributed (please correct me if I'm wrong). We could thus leave the "sources" out of the SRPM entirely. I'd rather not because they're (a) less than 10MB total and (b) I've already got this automated this way. Hopefully that answers your question about data/. I'll update the specfile, which ought be sufficient, since I can just change the upstream tarball location. -- 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
