[Bug 1856313] Review Request: python-ipywidgets - IPython HTML widgets for Jupyter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856313 --- Comment #3 from Lumír Balhar --- The package this one depends on (python-widgetsnbextension) will be soon in rawhide so this will be ready for 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 1856310] Review Request: python-widgetsnbextension - Interactive HTML widgets for Jupyter notebooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856310 Lumír Balhar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-07-16 05:56:13 --- Comment #13 from Lumír Balhar --- In rawhide soon: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-236351a8f9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1856313] Review Request: python-ipywidgets - IPython HTML widgets for Jupyter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856313 Bug 1856313 depends on bug 1856310, which changed state. Bug 1856310 Summary: Review Request: python-widgetsnbextension - Interactive HTML widgets for Jupyter notebooks https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856310 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1113387] Review Request: vertx-lang-rhino - Default JavaScript language module in Vert.x platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113387 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2020-07-16 05:50:10 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1113346] Review Request: vertx-lang-js - The JavaScript language API for Vert.x JavaScript language modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113346 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2020-07-16 05:49:44 -- 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 1113387] Review Request: vertx-lang-rhino - Default JavaScript language module in Vert.x platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113387 Bug 1113387 depends on bug 1110070, which changed state. Bug 1110070 Summary: Review Request: vert.x - A lightweight, high-performance, polyglot, event-driven application platform for JVM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110070 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1110070] Review Request: vert.x - A lightweight, high-performance, polyglot, event-driven application platform for JVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110070 Mattia Verga changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2020-07-16 05:49:32 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1113387] Review Request: vertx-lang-rhino - Default JavaScript language module in Vert.x platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113387 Bug 1113387 depends on bug 1113346, which changed state. Bug 1113346 Summary: Review Request: vertx-lang-js - The JavaScript language API for Vert.x JavaScript language modules https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113346 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1113346] Review Request: vertx-lang-js - The JavaScript language API for Vert.x JavaScript language modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113346 Bug 1113346 depends on bug 1110070, which changed state. Bug 1110070 Summary: Review Request: vert.x - A lightweight, high-performance, polyglot, event-driven application platform for JVM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110070 What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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
needinfo denied: [Bug 1301253] Review Request: color - A string colorizer
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Austin Dunn has denied Package Review 's request for Austin Dunn 's needinfo: Bug 1301253: Review Request: color - A string colorizer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301253 ___ package-review 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 1301253] Review Request: color - A string colorizer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301253 Austin Dunn changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(awd12...@gmail.co |needinfo- |m) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1856980] Review Request: golang-github-shellcode33-vm-detection - Linux and Windows VMs evasion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856980 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-c1156498a0 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-c1156498a0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c1156498a0 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 1821864] Review Request: golang-github-dennwc-base - Common Go interfaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821864 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-26fb354e8c 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-2020-26fb354e8c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-26fb354e8c 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 1854268] Review Request: opencsd - ARM coresight debug and trace decoder library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1854268 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-812a822b44 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-2020-812a822b44 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-812a822b44 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 1840713] Review Request: golang-github-reconquest-loreley - Simple and extensible colorizer for output
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840713 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-c722cb6cd3 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-c722cb6cd3 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c722cb6cd3 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 1854268] Review Request: opencsd - ARM coresight debug and trace decoder library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1854268 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-bdf2a503a9 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-bdf2a503a9 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bdf2a503a9 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 1856980] Review Request: golang-github-shellcode33-vm-detection - Linux and Windows VMs evasion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856980 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-09887740cc has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2020-09887740cc \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-09887740cc 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 1853858] Review Request: badwolf - Web Browser which aims at security and privacy over usability
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853858 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-07-16 01:14:24 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-cfe42d56c1 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1843751] Review Request: cvise - Super-parallel Python port of the C-Reduce
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1843751 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-07-16 01:13:52 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-bdcb8a4b8b has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1845667] Review Request: qxmledit - Powerful XML editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1845667 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-07-16 01:13:50 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-a250d662e6 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1845297] Review Request: jgmenu - A simple X11 menu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1845297 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-07-16 01:13:49 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-368d4a4b1a has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1843516] Review Request: php-composer-semver3 - Semver library version 3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1843516 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-d8053bd3a2 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1350884] Review Request: mspgcc - Rebase of GCC for the MSP430 to TI / Red Hat upstream
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #23 from Brandon Nielsen --- Follow up, I've confused myself, and could use guidance. The documentation for packaging cross compilers[0] states "All cross-compilers should add --prefix=/usr/arch-os-libc to ./configure when building the toolchain. This is according to the cross-compiling guidelines in GCC's INSTALL document." I cannot find this guideline in the GCC documentation[1]. I can do this of course, but it results in /usr/msp430-elf/bin, /usr/msp430-elf/lib, etc... I have experimented with this, and with symlinking the resulting binaries into /usr/bin (as noted in the Fedora documentation), the compiler works as expected. That being said, that it not how the most similar cross compiler, avr-gcc, is packaged[2]. So, I count 3 paths forward: 1: Specify prefix as per Fedora guidelines 2: Try to match avr-gcc, with everything going roughly where I would expect, binaries in /usr/bin, library files in /usr/lib/gcc/avr, etc... 3: The terrible hybrid I've done in all the builds above, with binaries going in /usr/bin, libraries and include files mostly going in /usr/msp430-elf/lib, but some going in /usr/lib... I really don't like 3, and I regret ever doing it. In my haste to get a working package together I went with the first thing that worked. I've been trying to do 2, but I'll be darned if I can get a working compiler out of it. 1 is easy, and I've proved it works, but it feels "weird". 0 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Cross_Compiling_Toolchains#Cross-compiling_GCC_tool-chains 1 - https://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html 2 - https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/avr-gcc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1854268] Review Request: opencsd - ARM coresight debug and trace decoder library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1854268 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-bdf2a503a9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bdf2a503a9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1854268] Review Request: opencsd - ARM coresight debug and trace decoder library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1854268 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-812a822b44 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-812a822b44 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1855094] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1855094 --- Comment #7 from Steven Jay Munroe --- Ok this is better: fixed up typos in pveclib.spec rawhide builds for 1.0.4-alpha2 $ fedpkg build Building pveclib-1.0.4alpha2-3.fc33 for rawhide Created task: 47279676 Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47279676 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 47279676 build (rawhide, /rpms/pveclib.git:46b3a365f589ab3c57806894db198e04961c345f): free 47279676 build (rawhide, /rpms/pveclib.git:46b3a365f589ab3c57806894db198e04961c345f): free -> open (buildhw-x86-01.iad2.fedoraproject.org) 47279705 buildSRPMFromSCM (/rpms/pveclib.git:46b3a365f589ab3c57806894db198e04961c345f): free 47279705 buildSRPMFromSCM (/rpms/pveclib.git:46b3a365f589ab3c57806894db198e04961c345f): free -> open (buildvm-s390x-08.s390.fedoraproject.org) 47279750 buildArch (pveclib-1.0.4alpha2-3.fc33.src.rpm, ppc64le): open (buildvm-ppc64le-23.iad2.fedoraproject.org) 47279705 buildSRPMFromSCM (/rpms/pveclib.git:46b3a365f589ab3c57806894db198e04961c345f): open (buildvm-s390x-08.s390.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 2 open 1 done 0 failed 47279795 tagBuild (noarch): open (buildvm-s390x-06.s390.fedoraproject.org) 47279750 buildArch (pveclib-1.0.4alpha2-3.fc33.src.rpm, ppc64le): open (buildvm-ppc64le-23.iad2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 2 open 2 done 0 failed 47279676 build (rawhide, /rpms/pveclib.git:46b3a365f589ab3c57806894db198e04961c345f): open (buildhw-x86-01.iad2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 1 open 3 done 0 failed 47279795 tagBuild (noarch): open (buildvm-s390x-06.s390.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 0 open 4 done 0 failed 47279676 build (rawhide, /rpms/pveclib.git:46b3a365f589ab3c57806894db198e04961c345f) completed successfully But I am just a little wierded out by the buildvm-s390x-08.s390 stuff -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1853888] Review Request: libLTK - Ladspa v3 ToolKit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853888 --- Comment #9 from Lewis --- Hi, I took Robert-André Mauchin's advices in account. Here is the new srpm and spec files : https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lewisanesa/CodeColla/fedora-32-x86_64/01554976-LTK/LTK-1.6.3-14.fc32.src.rpm https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/lewisanesa/CodeColla/fedora-32-x86_64/01554976-LTK/LTK-1.6.3-14.spec Now it generates libLTK.so.1 and libLTK.so -> libLTK.so.1 libLTK.so.1.6.3 -> libLTK.so.1 But I still have three questions : Why not do libLTK.so -> libLTK.so.1 -> libLTK.so.1.6.3 links? Shouldn't my package be dependent of libunwind? what if libunwind evolves? How can I change the line "rpmbuild -D "_topdir $(pwd)" -ba $SPEC_FILE" in order to use fedpkg or mock or whatever I have to use? (This line is in the over engineered auto script make.sh at the root of git://codecolla.com/libltk) I said : > For non french speaking people, I'll recap changes made to fit fedora > requirements, may this help someone one day... - Added a MAJOR global definition in the specfile - Commented and corrected Source0 - Added empty line management in dependencies - Switched %prep to %autosetup - Added intermediate shared object file with only major in name - Added it to soname on gcc final output - Gathered together install files and managed multi section manpages - Added link layer to proper tarball creation - Added fedora's compil flags - Removed libunwind dependency (libunwind-devel build dep is enough) - Added constant strings to sprintf calls (fedora flags compatibility) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1855094] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1855094 Steven Jay Munroe changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(package-review@li ||sts.fedoraproject.org) --- Comment #6 from Steven Jay Munroe --- $ fedpkg --release f33 scratch-build --srpm --fail-fast setting SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH=159408 Wrote: /home/sjmunroe/fedora-scm/pveclib/pveclib-1.0.4alpha2-3.fc33.src.rpm [] 100% 00:00:00 755.74 KiB 1.03 MiB/sec Building pveclib-1.0.4alpha2-3.fc33.src.rpm for f33-candidate Created task: 47275073 Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47275073 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 47275073 build (f33-candidate, pveclib-1.0.4alpha2-3.fc33.src.rpm): free 47275073 build (f33-candidate, pveclib-1.0.4alpha2-3.fc33.src.rpm): free -> open (buildvm-ppc64le-38.iad2.fedoraproject.org) 47275085 rebuildSRPM (noarch): closed 47275160 buildArch (pveclib-1.0.4alpha2-3.fc33.src.rpm, ppc64le): open (buildvm-ppc64le-04.iad2.fedoraproject.org) 47275073 build (f33-candidate, pveclib-1.0.4alpha2-3.fc33.src.rpm): open (buildvm-ppc64le-38.iad2.fedoraproject.org) -> FAILED: BuildError: error building package (arch ppc64le), mock exited with status 1; see build.log or root.log for more information 0 free 1 open 1 done 1 failed 47275160 buildArch (pveclib-1.0.4alpha2-3.fc33.src.rpm, ppc64le): open (buildvm-ppc64le-04.iad2.fedoraproject.org) -> FAILED: BuildError: error building package (arch ppc64le), mock exited with status 1; see build.log or root.log for more information 0 free 0 open 1 done 2 failed 47275073 build (f33-candidate, pveclib-1.0.4alpha2-3.fc33.src.rpm) failed [sjmunroe@homer54 pveclib]$ ls clogpveclib.spec sources pveclib-1.0.4alpha2-3.fc33.src.rpm README.md v1.0.4alpha2.tar.gz s where do I find the build.log or root.log? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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
needinfo requested: [Bug 1855094] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Steven Jay Munroe has asked Package Review for needinfo: Bug 1855094: Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1855094 --- Comment #6 from Steven Jay Munroe --- $ fedpkg --release f33 scratch-build --srpm --fail-fast setting SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH=159408 Wrote: /home/sjmunroe/fedora-scm/pveclib/pveclib-1.0.4alpha2-3.fc33.src.rpm [] 100% 00:00:00 755.74 KiB 1.03 MiB/sec Building pveclib-1.0.4alpha2-3.fc33.src.rpm for f33-candidate Created task: 47275073 Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47275073 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 47275073 build (f33-candidate, pveclib-1.0.4alpha2-3.fc33.src.rpm): free 47275073 build (f33-candidate, pveclib-1.0.4alpha2-3.fc33.src.rpm): free -> open (buildvm-ppc64le-38.iad2.fedoraproject.org) 47275085 rebuildSRPM (noarch): closed 47275160 buildArch (pveclib-1.0.4alpha2-3.fc33.src.rpm, ppc64le): open (buildvm-ppc64le-04.iad2.fedoraproject.org) 47275073 build (f33-candidate, pveclib-1.0.4alpha2-3.fc33.src.rpm): open (buildvm-ppc64le-38.iad2.fedoraproject.org) -> FAILED: BuildError: error building package (arch ppc64le), mock exited with status 1; see build.log or root.log for more information 0 free 1 open 1 done 1 failed 47275160 buildArch (pveclib-1.0.4alpha2-3.fc33.src.rpm, ppc64le): open (buildvm-ppc64le-04.iad2.fedoraproject.org) -> FAILED: BuildError: error building package (arch ppc64le), mock exited with status 1; see build.log or root.log for more information 0 free 0 open 1 done 2 failed 47275073 build (f33-candidate, pveclib-1.0.4alpha2-3.fc33.src.rpm) failed [sjmunroe@homer54 pveclib]$ ls clogpveclib.spec sources pveclib-1.0.4alpha2-3.fc33.src.rpm README.md v1.0.4alpha2.tar.gz s where do I find the build.log or root.log? ___ package-review 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 1853510] Review Request: python-flask-wtf-decorators - Use decorators to validate forms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853510 --- Comment #10 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-flask-wtf-decorators -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1853510] Review Request: python-flask-wtf-decorators - Use decorators to validate forms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853510 Jakub Kadlčík changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |python-flask-wtf-decorators |python-flask-wtf-decorators ||- Use decorators to ||validate forms -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1857059] Review Request: bleachbit - Remove sensitive data and free up disk space
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1857059 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Toskin --- Oh, I'd forgotten the minor issue you pointed out, about DESTDIR being defined already in %make_install. Your suggestion of clearing the mock chroot fixed local fedora-review for me, and also allowed me to use the optimized %make_build for the delete_windows_files target. (Probably doesn't actually help much in this case, but probably doesn't hurt either, and removes a complaint from the generated review.txt.) Anyway, thanks for the review, and approval. I'll post the minor updates anyway. Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/terrycloth/packaging-bleachbit/uploads/9322a7b2b05abd0f08fe68745121ee0d/bleachbit.spec SRPM URL: https://gitlab.com/terrycloth/packaging-bleachbit/uploads/b2258932d8a70cd01fcb96bcc3551f93/bleachbit-4.0.0-2.fc33.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 1857059] Review Request: bleachbit - Remove sensitive data and free up disk space
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1857059 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- I did not have any issue with f-review. Try scrubbing your mock chroot (mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --scrub=all) If it causes a mismatch don't do it. It should be done in prep, not after install. Package LGTM, is approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1857059] Review Request: bleachbit - Remove sensitive data and free up disk space
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1857059 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Toskin --- Great, thanks! I've been having some trouble running fedora-review locally: Based on local files with `fedora-review --name`, it fails during mockbuild %build phase with "no job control", even though `fedpkg mockbuild` completes without error; and based on this online Bugzilla thread with `fedora-review --bug`, it fails to download the SRPM with Error 403, even though wget is able to download the same exact URL without issue, and I don't understand what's going wrong on my end... So I wasn't sure if fedora-review was going to even work here. I'm also not sure how to strip the shebangs from the non-executable files. I'd rather do it dynamically, based on `find`ing -not -executable files or something, rather than acting on CLI.py, GUI.py, and _platform.py explicitly... However, in the source, *most* Python files are marked as executable for some reason, and then the executability is removed where unneeded during %build or %install. So testing for executability during the %prep phase just doesn't catch the files. On the other hand, testing and stripping the shebangs *after* compilation causes a mismatch between the file timestamps for the source and compiled byte code, and rpmlint says this means the byte code will get recompiled every time the application launches... bleachbit.noarch: E: python-bytecode-inconsistent-mtime /usr/share/bleachbit/__pycache__/Update.cpython-39.opt-1.pyc 2020-07-15T09:21:59 /usr/share/bleachbit/Update.py 2020-07-15T09:22:00 The timestamp embedded in this python bytecode file isn't equal to the mtime of the original source file, which will force the interpreter to recompile the .py source every time, ignoring the saved bytecode... The best I can figure is, during %prep, to strip shebangs from *all* source Python files under ./bleachbit/, since all the files in that directory seem to install to /usr/share/. I don't know if that's guaranteed, though, so I kinda dislike this heuristic. Spec URL: https://gitlab.com/terrycloth/packaging-bleachbit/uploads/5e93cad32cd6f9e83c3d0141ea2d95ef/bleachbit.spec SRPM URL: https://gitlab.com/terrycloth/packaging-bleachbit/uploads/89d4a8f31ca4122b4bd8bd2317618e85/bleachbit-4.0.0-2.fc33.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 1857316] New: Review Request: rust-gptman - GPT manager that allows you to copy partitions from one disk to another
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1857316 Bug ID: 1857316 Summary: Review Request: rust-gptman - GPT manager that allows you to copy partitions from one disk to another Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: bgilb...@backtick.net QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~bgilbert/rust-gptman/rust-gptman.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~bgilbert/rust-gptman/rust-gptman-0.6.3-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: GPT manager that allows you to copy partitions from one disk to another Fedora Account System Username: bgilbert -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1855094] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1855094 --- Comment #5 from Steven Jay Munroe --- (In reply to Steven Jay Munroe from comment #4) > It looks like I need help: I have a Fedora 30 and 42 system. I originated > pveclib for f31 from the f30 system (pagure.keys and all that). Can I > continue to work fedpkg from the F30 install or do I move up to F32? > > Has the setup changes for F32? The pagure.keys where in > .config/rpkg/fedpkg.conf. I copied fedpkg.conf from the F30 to to > .config/rpkg/fedpkg.conf on the F32 system but "fedpkg clone pveclib" fails > there: > > sjmun...@pkgs.fedoraproject.org: Permission denied (publickey). > fatal: Could not read from remote repository. > > > hmmm: my local id is sjmunroe but my FAS login is munroesj52? So I have miss > configure fedpkg on the F32 install? Ok fixed the identity crisis from: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintenance_guide#Installing_fedpkg_and_doing_initial_setup I should be able the swing the exist pveclib-1.0.3 to F32 for build. Then update source to pveclib-1.0.4alpha2 for 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 1856555] Review Request: maven-indexer - Standard for producing indexes of Maven repositories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856555 Mat Booth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-07-15 16:23:18 --- Comment #3 from Mat Booth --- Thanks for the review. Rawhide build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1542196 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1855094] Review Request: pveclib - Library for simplified access to PowerISA vector operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1855094 --- Comment #4 from Steven Jay Munroe --- It looks like I need help: I have a Fedora 30 and 42 system. I originated pveclib for f31 from the f30 system (pagure.keys and all that). Can I continue to work fedpkg from the F30 install or do I move up to F32? Has the setup changes for F32? The pagure.keys where in .config/rpkg/fedpkg.conf. I copied fedpkg.conf from the F30 to to .config/rpkg/fedpkg.conf on the F32 system but "fedpkg clone pveclib" fails there: sjmun...@pkgs.fedoraproject.org: Permission denied (publickey). fatal: Could not read from remote repository. hmmm: my local id is sjmunroe but my FAS login is munroesj52? So I have miss configure fedpkg on the F32 install? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1856555] Review Request: maven-indexer - Standard for producing indexes of Maven repositories
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856555 Bug 1856555 depends on bug 1856554, which changed state. Bug 1856554 Summary: Review Request: maven-archetype - Maven project templating toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856554 What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1856554] Review Request: maven-archetype - Maven project templating toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856554 Mat Booth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-07-15 16:02:39 --- Comment #3 from Mat Booth --- Thanks for the review. Rawhide build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1542193 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027
--- Comment #13 from Fabien Boucher ---
Hi Robert-André, thanks for the review.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #12)
> - Remove shebangs for
>
> zuul.noarch: E: non-executable-script
> /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/base/library/command.py 644
> /usr/bin/python3
> zuul.noarch: E: non-executable-script
> /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/base/library/zuul_console.py
> 644 /usr/bin/python3
For this one I have an upstream patch that does not pass the upstream CI
https://review.opendev.org/728955/ . It seems that removing the shebang create
unexpected issues ... So I need to dig more into that weird issue if that's a
packaging blocker.
> - Add a logrotate file for your log See
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
> #_logrotate_config_file
This is a point where a I have a doubt. The Python logging file provided by the
package ensures the rotation https://fbo.fedorapeople.org/zuul/logging.conf.
Should I remove the use of 'TimedRotatingFileHandler' and move on logrotate ?
> - Own this dir:
>
> [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> Note: No known owner of /etc/zuul
>
This should be fixed: the "%dir %attr(0755,zuul,zuul) %{_sysconfdir}/zuul" was
missing.
>
>
> Package Review
> ==
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
>
>
> Issues:
> ===
> - Package installs properly.
> Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
> See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
>
> = MUST items =
>
> Generic:
> [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
> other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
> Guidelines.
> [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
> found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright*
> Apache License 2.0 GPL (v3.0)", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
> "Expat License", "GPL (v3 or later)". 1645 files have unknown license.
> Detailed output of licensecheck in
> /home/bob/packaging/review/zuul/review-zuul/licensecheck.txt
> [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> Note: No known owner of /etc/zuul
> [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.
> [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
> [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
> [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
> [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
> one supported primary architecture.
> [x]: 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
> [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
> [x]: Dist tag is present.
> [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
> [x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
> [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
> work.
> [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
> [x]: No %config files under /usr.
> [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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
> systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd
[Bug 1856980] Review Request: golang-github-shellcode33-vm-detection - Linux and Windows VMs evasion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856980 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-09887740cc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-09887740cc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1856980] Review Request: golang-github-shellcode33-vm-detection - Linux and Windows VMs evasion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856980 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-c1156498a0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c1156498a0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1856980] Review Request: golang-github-shellcode33-vm-detection - Linux and Windows VMs evasion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856980 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-github-shellcode33-vm-detection -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1856310] Review Request: python-widgetsnbextension - Interactive HTML widgets for Jupyter notebooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856310 --- Comment #12 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-widgetsnbextension -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1857037] Review Request: rubygem-ncursesw - Ruby wrapper for the ncurses library, with wide character support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1857037 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-ncursesw -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1857199] New: Review Request: mozjs78 - JavaScript interpreter and libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1857199 Bug ID: 1857199 Summary: Review Request: mozjs78 - JavaScript interpreter and libraries Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fzatl...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora SPEC: https://gist.github.com/frantisekz/52551d4f22f4e6a127aa5d2d4411a401 SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/frantisekz/mozjs78/srpm-builds/01554533/mozjs78-78.0.2-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: SpiderMonkey is the code-name for Mozilla Firefox's C++ implementation of JavaScript. It is intended to be embedded in other applications that provide host environments for JavaScript. It's based on mozjs68 package: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mozjs68 This is probably going to need some more fixing for arm/ppc/s390 arches which I am planning to work on in a few days. I think this can be done before/after the package review. I've tested this only on x86_64 for now. LTO will be enabled at later point too to make developing and rebuilding faster right now before anything else depends on it. New GNOME Shell is going to require this: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gjs/-/merge_requests/458 New polkit is going to require this: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/polkit/polkit/-/merge_requests/58 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1822151] Review Request: golang-github-dennwc-graphql - Implementation of GraphQL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822151 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-07-15 12:30:42 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1856980] Review Request: golang-github-shellcode33-vm-detection - Linux and Windows VMs evasion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856980 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1826439] Review Request: libvma - LD_PRELOAD-able library with standard BSD sockets API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1826439 --- Comment #28 from igor.ivanov...@gmail.com --- Thank you for review Package was updated. Changes include: 1. 30-libvma-limits.conf was removed (let administrator configure system basing on internal requirements for user, groups etc. libvma has run-time check as https://github.com/igor-ivanov/libvma/blob/master/src/vma/main.cpp#L423) 2. vma.service started using vmad directly. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1853510] Review Request: python-flask-wtf-decorators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853510 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Kadlčík --- I see, thank you very much. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1853510] Review Request: python-flask-wtf-decorators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853510
--- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #7)
> Thank you for the package review.
>
> Can I ask one more thing that I am a bit confused now, since we changed the
> release number?
>
>
> Release:0.2.20200715.%{shortcommit}%{?dist}
>
>
> The MMDD part done accordingly to this
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/
> #_snapshots
>
> but now I am really unsure whether it should be a date of that commit or the
> date
> when I created that spec release.
The date should be the date you took the snapshot of the source, not the date
of the commit itself.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review 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 1857067] Review Request: python-netapp-lib - NetApp library for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1857067
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Should be detected by the automatic dependency generator
Requires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-lxml
Requires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-xmltodict
- Add a / at the end to ensure these are directories:
%{python3_sitelib}/%{libname}/
%{python3_sitelib}/%{eggname}-%{version}-py%{python3_version}.egg-info/
- Ask upstream to join a license file with their archive
Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[-]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-netapp-
lib/review-python-netapp-lib/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: 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 =
[Bug 1857059] Review Request: bleachbit - Remove sensitive data and free up disk space
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1857059
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Not needed anymore:
%posttrans
update-desktop-database
- %make_install already contain DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
- You should remove the shebang of these files:
bleachbit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/bleachbit/CLI.py 644
/usr/bin/python3
bleachbit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/bleachbit/GUI.py 644
/usr/bin/python3
bleachbit.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/bleachbit/_platform.py
644 /usr/bin/python3
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", "*No copyright* Expat License GNU
General Public License (v3)", "GPL (v3 or later)". 97 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/bleachbit/review-bleachbit/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package 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]:
[Bug 1856980] Review Request: golang-github-shellcode33-vm-detection - Linux and Windows VMs evasion
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856980 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1853510] Review Request: python-flask-wtf-decorators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853510
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Kadlčík ---
Thank you for the package review.
Can I ask one more thing that I am a bit confused now, since we changed the
release number?
Release:0.2.20200715.%{shortcommit}%{?dist}
The MMDD part done accordingly to this
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots
but now I am really unsure whether it should be a date of that commit or the
date
when I created that spec 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 1821864] Review Request: golang-github-dennwc-base - Common Go interfaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821864 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-26fb354e8c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-26fb354e8c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027
--- Comment #12 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Remove shebangs for
zuul.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/base/library/command.py 644
/usr/bin/python3
zuul.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/zuul/ansible/base/library/zuul_console.py 644
/usr/bin/python3
- Add a logrotate file for your log See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_logrotate_config_file
- Own this dir:
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /etc/zuul
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright*
Apache License 2.0 GPL (v3.0)", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
"Expat License", "GPL (v3 or later)". 1645 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/zuul/review-zuul/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /etc/zuul
[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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: 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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and
systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files.
Note: Systemd service file(s) in zuul-scheduler, zuul-merger, zuul-
web, zuul-executor, zuul-fingergw
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned
[Bug 1853510] Review Request: python-flask-wtf-decorators
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1853510 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1840714] Review Request: golang-github-reconquest-barely - Status bar to pretty display of Golang program's progress
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1840714 --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1821864] Review Request: golang-github-dennwc-base - Common Go interfaces
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821864 --- Comment #3 from Fabian Affolter --- Thanks for the review. https://github.com/dennwc/base/issues/1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1838027] Review Request: zuul - Trunk Gating System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838027 --- Comment #11 from Fabien Boucher --- Hello, thanks to the work of Sviatoslav to land the cheroot's patch, I was able to land a fix upstream to remove the cheroot pinning (https://review.opendev.org/740717). Then I've updated the spec file. Spec URL: https://fbo.fedorapeople.org/zuul/zuul.spec SRPM URL: https://fbo.fedorapeople.org/zuul/zuul-3.19.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=47247540 And update of cheroot rpm is needed: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-cheroot/pull-request/2 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1856557] Review Request: trilead-ssh2 - SSH-2 protocol implementation in pure Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856557 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Fabio Valentini --- Great. Package APPROVED :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1856557] Review Request: trilead-ssh2 - SSH-2 protocol implementation in pure Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856557 --- Comment #7 from Mat Booth --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #6) > (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #5) > > NTP is just MIT: > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le...@lists.fedoraproject.org/ > > message/XSDPIYGEEIVMTJCKPGAL6UCC6DKJHZGK/ > > Thanks for the link! Reading the message, I think the same applies here (RSA > license). > Should RSA be added to the License field? That's what openjdk package did, so I do so here too: (Now also with fixed release tag) Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/trilead-ssh2.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/trilead-ssh2-217.21-2.fc33.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 1854729] Review Request: nispor - API for network state query writtent in rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1854729 Fernando F. Mancera changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(ferferna@redhat.c |needinfo+ |om) | --- Comment #12 from Fernando F. Mancera --- (In reply to Gris Ge from comment #11) > (In reply to Fernando F. Mancera from comment #10) > > The SPEC file looks good to me. I am not sure if it is a good idea to have > > the dependent crates in a Copr repository. Will this force all the users to > > enable the copr repository before installing nispor? > > The copr repo is just demonstration it works. > > Packaging rust crates is rule of Fedora rawhide. > And for Fedora stable rpm, it will just use the compiled package built from > the Fedora rawhide buildroot. > > The rust package is static linking, once compiled, it does not has runtime > dependency besides glibc. Oh, in that case, it looks good to me. Thanks for explaining. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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
needinfo canceled: [Bug 1328889] Review Request: libiomp - Intel OpenMP runtime library
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Dave Love has canceled Package Review 's request for Dave Love 's needinfo: Bug 1328889: Review Request: libiomp - Intel OpenMP runtime library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328889 --- Comment #5 from Dave Love --- I thought I'd cancelled this as the library is now shipped with clang, though it needs fixing to substitute for libgomp. ___ package-review 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 1328889] Review Request: libiomp - Intel OpenMP runtime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328889 Dave Love changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Flags|needinfo?(dave.love@manches | |ter.ac.uk) | Last Closed||2020-07-15 09:28:32 --- Comment #5 from Dave Love --- I thought I'd cancelled this as the library is now shipped with clang, though it needs fixing to substitute for libgomp. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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
needinfo canceled: [Bug 1113346] Review Request: vertx-lang-js - The JavaScript language API for Vert.x JavaScript language modules
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Lin Gao has canceled Package Review 's request for Lin Gao 's needinfo: Bug 1113346: Review Request: vertx-lang-js - The JavaScript language API for Vert.x JavaScript language modules https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113346 --- Comment #2 from Lin Gao --- vertx2 has been deprecated, we can close it ___ package-review 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 1113387] Review Request: vertx-lang-rhino - Default JavaScript language module in Vert.x platform
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113387 Lin Gao changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(l...@redhat.com) | --- Comment #2 from Lin Gao --- vertx2 has been deprecated, we can close it -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1113346] Review Request: vertx-lang-js - The JavaScript language API for Vert.x JavaScript language modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113346 Lin Gao changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(l...@redhat.com) | --- Comment #2 from Lin Gao --- vertx2 has been deprecated, we can close it -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
needinfo canceled: [Bug 1113387] Review Request: vertx-lang-rhino - Default JavaScript language module in Vert.x platform
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Lin Gao has canceled Package Review 's request for Lin Gao 's needinfo: Bug 1113387: Review Request: vertx-lang-rhino - Default JavaScript language module in Vert.x platform https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113387 --- Comment #2 from Lin Gao --- vertx2 has been deprecated, we can close it ___ package-review 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 1854729] Review Request: nispor - API for network state query writtent in rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1854729 --- Comment #11 from Gris Ge --- (In reply to Fernando F. Mancera from comment #10) > The SPEC file looks good to me. I am not sure if it is a good idea to have > the dependent crates in a Copr repository. Will this force all the users to > enable the copr repository before installing nispor? The copr repo is just demonstration it works. Packaging rust crates is rule of Fedora rawhide. And for Fedora stable rpm, it will just use the compiled package built from the Fedora rawhide buildroot. The rust package is static linking, once compiled, it does not has runtime dependency besides glibc. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1110070] Review Request: vert.x - A lightweight, high-performance, polyglot, event-driven application platform for JVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110070 Lin Gao changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(l...@redhat.com) | --- Comment #8 from Lin Gao --- vertx2 has been deprecated, we can close it -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
needinfo canceled: [Bug 1110070] Review Request: vert.x - A lightweight, high-performance, polyglot, event-driven application platform for JVM
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Lin Gao has canceled Package Review 's request for Lin Gao 's needinfo: Bug 1110070: Review Request: vert.x - A lightweight, high-performance, polyglot, event-driven application platform for JVM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110070 --- Comment #8 from Lin Gao --- vertx2 has been deprecated, we can close it ___ package-review 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 1856310] Review Request: python-widgetsnbextension - Interactive HTML widgets for Jupyter notebooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856310 --- Comment #11 from Lumír Balhar --- Thank you! Component request: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/27125 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1854729] Review Request: nispor - API for network state query writtent in rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1854729 --- Comment #10 from Fernando F. Mancera --- The SPEC file looks good to me. I am not sure if it is a good idea to have the dependent crates in a Copr repository. Will this force all the users to enable the copr repository before installing nispor? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1849568] Review Request: sourcetrail - a free and open-source interactive source explorer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849568 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tstel...@redhat.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 1856310] Review Request: python-widgetsnbextension - Interactive HTML widgets for Jupyter notebooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856310 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Miro Hrončok --- Package APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1856310] Review Request: python-widgetsnbextension - Interactive HTML widgets for Jupyter notebooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856310 --- Comment #9 from Lumír Balhar --- > One more thing, the package need to runtime require > python-jupyter-filesystem, not buildrequire. Sorry for not noticing sooner. Updated. No problem. I just think that it needs it for both build/run otherwise fedora-review complains about folders created but not owned by this package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://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 1856310] Review Request: python-widgetsnbextension - Interactive HTML widgets for Jupyter notebooks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1856310 --- Comment #8 from Miro Hrončok --- > I've just changed it to sagemath-jupyter. Right, good catch! One more thing, the package need to runtime require python-jupyter-filesystem, not buildrequire. Sorry for not noticing sooner. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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 1849568] Review Request: sourcetrail - a free and open-source interactive source explorer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849568 --- Comment #9 from serge_sans_paille --- Parallel builds are now ok, I updated the uploaded files to reflect that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review 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
