[Bug 1875517] [Fedora] Add intel-ipsec-mb package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1875517 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- All existing issues addressed. 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 1879544] Review Request: golang-github-mozillazg-pinyin - Tools and Golang library to convert Chinese characters to Pinyin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879544
Qiyu Yan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Qiyu Yan ---
LGTM, approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/yan/review/1879544-golang-github-mozillazg-
pinyin/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/share/gocode/src/github.com(...) // Some warning, Totally fine
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in golang-
github-mozillazg-pinyin-devel
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original
[Bug 1879544] Review Request: golang-github-mozillazg-pinyin - Tools and Golang library to convert Chinese characters to Pinyin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879544 Robin Lee changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Robin Lee --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/cheeselee/deepin-20-testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01664446-golang-github-mozillazg-pinyin/golang-github-mozillazg-pinyin.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/cheeselee/deepin-20-testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01664446-golang-github-mozillazg-pinyin/golang-github-mozillazg-pinyin-0.18.0-2.fc34.src.rpm * Thu Sep 17 2020 Robin Lee - 0.18.0-2 - Don't include pinyin-data - Remove duplicated doc files -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1876243] Review Request: golang-github-aaronjanse-pty - Go package for using unix pseudo-terminals
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876243 --- 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 1876242] Review Request: golang-github-npat-efault-poller - An epoll(7)-based file-descriptor multiplexer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876242 --- 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 1878898] Review Request: nwg-launchers - GTK-based launchers for sway and other window managers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878898 Aleksei Bavshin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bob.hep...@gmail.com --- Comment #5 from Aleksei Bavshin --- (In reply to Bob Hepple from comment #4) > Tiny quibble - this does not require a .desktop file but there should be a > comment to that effect in the spec file (I need to do that myself for > lavalauncher!). Thanks for review! I'll add a comment before import. Lavalauncher is not alone in the list of offenders. I've just checked specs for other launchers for minimalistic WMs (rofi, wofi, dmenu and bemenu) and none of them has desktop files or a comment in the spec. Either this rule is too new or it's a commonly ignored one :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1421506] Review Request: smlnj - Standard ML of New Jersey
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421506 Daniel Moerner changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(dmoer...@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
needinfo denied: [Bug 1421506] Review Request: smlnj - Standard ML of New Jersey
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Daniel Moerner has denied Package Review 's request for Daniel Moerner 's needinfo: Bug 1421506: Review Request: smlnj - Standard ML of New Jersey https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421506 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1878898] Review Request: nwg-launchers - GTK-based launchers for sway and other window managers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878898
Bob Hepple changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Bob Hepple ---
Ah! thank you so much. Now I've got it (the cmake stuff). So my comments on
licensing disappear.
It builds fine for me in mock, installs OK and runs fine.
Tiny quibble - this does not require a .desktop file but there should be a
comment to that effect in the spec file (I need to do that myself for
lavalauncher!).
MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 43 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bhepple/tmp/1878898-nwg-
launchers/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 files.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD
[Bug 1878898] Review Request: nwg-launchers - GTK-based launchers for sway and other window managers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878898 --- Comment #3 from Aleksei Bavshin --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01664263-nwg-launchers/nwg-launchers.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/alebastr/sway-extras/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01664263-nwg-launchers/nwg-launchers-0.3.4-0.1.fc34.src.rpm Updated to 0.3.4 and changed the description. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879768] Review Request: python-lacrosse - LaCrosse Python sensor library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879768 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1269538 (IoT) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538 [Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879768] New: Review Request: python-lacrosse - LaCrosse Python sensor library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879768 Bug ID: 1879768 Summary: Review Request: python-lacrosse - LaCrosse Python sensor library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-lacrosse.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-lacrosse-0.4-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: http://github.com/hthiery/python-lacrosse Description: Python libray to work with the Jeelink USB RF adapter. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=51619485 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-lacrosse-0.4-1.fc32.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-lacrosse-0.4-1.fc32.noarch.rpm python3-lacrosse.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pylacrosse 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1877946] Review Request: pyserial-asyncio - Asynchronous Python Serial Port Extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877946 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1879765 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879765 [Bug 1879765] Review Request: python-insteon - Python API for controlling Insteon devices -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879765] Review Request: python-insteon - Python API for controlling Insteon devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879765 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1269538 (IoT) Depends On||1877946 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538 [Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877946 [Bug 1877946] Review Request: pyserial-asyncio - Asynchronous Python Serial Port Extension -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879765] New: Review Request: python-insteon - Python API for controlling Insteon devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879765 Bug ID: 1879765 Summary: Review Request: python-insteon - Python API for controlling Insteon devices Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-insteon.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-insteon-1.0.7-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/pyinsteon/pyinsteon Description: This is a Python package to interface with an Insteon Modem. It has been tested to work with most USB or RS-232 serial based devices such as the 2413U, 2412S, 2448A7 and Hub models 2242 and 2245. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=51617824 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-insteon-1.0.7-1.fc32.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-insteon-1.0.7-1.fc32.noarch.rpm python3-insteon.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary insteon_tools 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879209] Review Request: rust-peg-macros - Procedural macros for rust-peg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879209 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1758914 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758914 [Bug 1758914] rust-peg-0.6.3 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879207] Review Request: rust-peg-runtime - Runtime support for rust-peg grammars
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879207 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1758914 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758914 [Bug 1758914] rust-peg-0.6.3 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879762] Review Request: python-wiffi - Python module to interface devices from STALL WIFFI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879762 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1269538 (IoT) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538 [Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879762] New: Review Request: python-wiffi - Python module to interface devices from STALL WIFFI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879762 Bug ID: 1879762 Summary: Review Request: python-wiffi - Python module to interface devices from STALL WIFFI Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-wiffi.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-wiffi-1.0.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/mampfes/python-wiffi Description: Python module to interface devices from STALL WIFFI. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=51616922 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-wiffi-1.0.1-1.fc32.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-wiffi-1.0.1-1.fc32.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879755] Review Request: python-daikin - Python Daikin HVAC appliances interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879755 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-daikin.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-daikin-2.4.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://bitbucket.org/mustang51/pydaikin Description: PyDaikin is a standalone program and a library that interface air conditioners from Daikin. Currently the following Daikin WiFi modules are supported: - BRP069Axx/BRP069Bxx/BRP072Axx - BRP15B61 aka. AirBase (similar protocol as BRP069Axx) - BRP072B/Cxx (needs HTTPS access and a key) - SKYFi (different protocol, have a password) Koji scratch build: rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-daikin-2.4.0-1.fc32.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-daikin-2.4.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm python3-daikin.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pydaikin 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879755] New: Review Request: python-daikin - Python Daikin HVAC appliances interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879755 Bug ID: 1879755 Summary: Review Request: python-daikin - Python Daikin HVAC appliances interface Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-daikin.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-daikin-2.4.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://bitbucket.org/mustang51/pydaikin Description: PyDaikin is a standalone program and a library that interface air conditioners from Daikin. Currently the following Daikin WiFi modules are supported: - BRP069Axx/BRP069Bxx/BRP072Axx - BRP15B61 aka. AirBase (similar protocol as BRP069Axx) - BRP072B/Cxx (needs HTTPS access and a key) - SKYFi (different protocol, have a password) Koji scratch build: rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-daikin-2.4.0-1.fc32.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-daikin-2.4.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm python3-daikin.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pydaikin 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879755] Review Request: python-daikin - Python Daikin HVAC appliances interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879755 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1269538 (IoT) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538 [Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879750] Review Request: python-homematic - Python Homematic interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879750 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1269538 (IoT) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538 [Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879750] New: Review Request: python-homematic - Python Homematic interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879750 Bug ID: 1879750 Summary: Review Request: python-homematic - Python Homematic interface Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-homematic.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-homematic-0.1.68-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/danielperna84/pyhomematic Description: This library provides easy (bi-directional) control of Homematic devices hooked up to a regular CCU or Homegear. The focus is to be able to receive events. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=51613991 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-homematic-0.1.68-1.fc32.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-homematic-0.1.68-1.fc32.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879745] New: Review Request: python-danfossair - Python interface for Danfoss Air HRV systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879745 Bug ID: 1879745 Summary: Review Request: python-danfossair - Python interface for Danfoss Air HRV systems Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-danfossair.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-danfossair-0.1.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/JonasPed/pydanfoss-air Description: Python module and client for Danfoss Air HRV systems. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=51613064 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-danfossair-0.1.0-1.fc32.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-danfossair-0.1.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879745] Review Request: python-danfossair - Python interface for Danfoss Air HRV systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879745 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1269538 (IoT) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538 [Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879742] Review Request: python-deconz - Python library for communicating with deCONZ REST API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879742 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1269538 (IoT) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538 [Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879742] New: Review Request: python-deconz - Python library for communicating with deCONZ REST API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879742 Bug ID: 1879742 Summary: Review Request: python-deconz - Python library for communicating with deCONZ REST API Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-deconz.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-deconz-73-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/Kane610/deconz Description: Python library for communicating with deCONZ REST API by dresden elektronik. This implementation should cover most devices supported by deCONZ. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=51612319 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-deconz-73-1.fc32.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-deconz-73-1.fc32.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879717] Review Request: python-chromecast - Python module to talk to Google Chromecast
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879717 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2020-09-16 20:26:31 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Affolter --- Yes, it's. Thanks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879717] Review Request: python-chromecast - Python module to talk to Google Chromecast
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879717 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pbrobin...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Peter Robinson --- this is already packaged as pychromecast -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1877902] Review Request: python-homeconnect - Python client for the BSH Home Connect REST API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877902 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-62f3d22a42 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-62f3d22a42 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879716] Review Request: rust-pure-rust-locales - Pure Rust locales imported directly from the GNU C Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879716 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1867195 Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rust-pure-rust-locales.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rust-pure-rust-locales-0.5.2-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Pure Rust locales imported directly from the GNU C Library. `LC_COLLATE` and `LC_CTYPE` are not yet supported. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867195 [Bug 1867195] rust-chrono-0.4.15 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879717] New: Review Request: python-chromecast - Python module to talk to Google Chromecast
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879717 Bug ID: 1879717 Summary: Review Request: python-chromecast - Python module to talk to Google Chromecast Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: m...@fabian-affolter.ch QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879717] Review Request: python-chromecast - Python module to talk to Google Chromecast
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879717 Fabian Affolter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1269538 (IoT) Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Spec URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-chromecast.spec SRPM URL: https://fab.fedorapeople.org/packages/SRPMS/python-chromecast-7.3.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Project URL: https://github.com/home-assistant-libs/pychromecast Description: Library for Python to communicate with the Google Chromecast. It currently supports: - Auto discovering connected Chromecasts on the network - Start the default media receiver and play any online media - Control playback of current playing media - Implement Google Chromecast API v2 - Communicate with apps via channels - Easily extendable to add support for unsupported namespaces - Multi-room setups with Audio cast devices Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=51610199 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint python-chromecast-7.3.0-1.fc32.src.rpm python-chromecast.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US namespaces -> name spaces, name-spaces, names paces 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint python3-chromecast-7.3.0-1.fc32.noarch.rpm python3-chromecast.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US namespaces -> name spaces, name-spaces, names paces 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Fedora Account System Username: fab Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538 [Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879716] New: Review Request: rust-pure-rust-locales - Pure Rust locales imported directly from the GNU C Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879716 Bug ID: 1879716 Summary: Review Request: rust-pure-rust-locales - Pure Rust locales imported directly from the GNU C Library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: decatho...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1878143] Review Request: python-uptime - Cross-platform uptime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878143 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-3d0d98d39d has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-2020-3d0d98d39d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3d0d98d39d 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 1879692] Review Request: rust-quick-xml - High performance xml reader and writer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879692 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1868923 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868923 [Bug 1868923] rust-feed-rs-0.4.0 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1857767] Review Request: python-ephem - Compute positions of the planets and stars
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1857767 --- Comment #11 from Fabian Affolter --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #7) > > It's a file. > > Indeed. In that case, the setuptools BuildRequires is superfluous. Removed > > Because this test is failing. > > I figured that much ;) Is there an upstream report about this? (To be clear: > This is not a blocker for the review.) It's on my todo list. But I need to investigate a little more before complaining. > I've noticed the following files are packaged in python3-ephem: > > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/CHANGELOG.rst > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/angle.rst > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/catalogs.rst > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/coordinates.rst > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/date.rst > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/examples.rst > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/index.rst > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/newton.rst > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/quick.rst > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/radec.rst > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/reference.rst > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/rise-set.rst > /usr/lib64/python3.9/site-packages/ephem/doc/tutorial.rst > > > Are they used at runtime? If not, consider moving them to the doc package or > not packaging them at all. They are removed as there is a doc subpackage which contain the rendered rst file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879692] New: Review Request: rust-quick-xml - High performance xml reader and writer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879692 Bug ID: 1879692 Summary: Review Request: rust-quick-xml - High performance xml reader and writer Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: decatho...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rust-quick-xml.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/rust-quick-xml-0.18.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: High performance xml reader and writer. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1857767] Review Request: python-ephem - Compute positions of the planets and stars
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1857767 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-98f506e24c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-98f506e24c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1876259] Review Request: perl-URI-cpan - URLs that refer to things on the CPAN
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876259 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-5b408002a0 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-2020-5b408002a0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5b408002a0 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 1878902] Review Request: naga - Simplified Java NIO asynchronous sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878902
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
I don't have much experience with packaging Java stuff, but I see this has been
sitting around for a while so I want to help.
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=51604491
> Requires: java-headless
> Requires: javapackages-tools
The Java Packaging Guidelines mention also that a Requires on
javapackages-filesystem should be added:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/#_buildrequires_and_requires
> Requires: javapackages-filesystem
> %package javadoc
> Summary:Javadocs for %{name}
> Requires: javapackages-tools
The guidelines mention that the %{name}-javadoc subpackage should be explicitly
declared as noarch:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/#_javadoc_installation
> %files
> %doc Echoserver.md Eventmachine.md Gotchas.md PacketReader.md README.md
> %{_javadir}/naga.jar
> %{_javadir}/naga-3_0.jar
No %license file added to the package and I see neither the old nor the new
upstream have a license file in their source tree. Also, only the old upstream
mentions that the license is MIT. Could you ask upstream to add a license file
for the MIT license?
Also, a very minor thing, but you can use %{name} instead of "naga" :).
The rest of the review:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java
to get additional checks
Review: The plugin was orphaned 2+ years ago.
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/naga
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
Review: it's fine, since it's an unretirement request.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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", "Expat License". 27 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/naga/naga/licensecheck.txt
Review: Presumably yes.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
Review: Yes, but as mentioned before, instances of "naga"
can be replaced with %{name}
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 5 files.
Review: naga-javadoc added as subpackage.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make
[Bug 1878908] Review Request: rust-bootupd - bootloader updater
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878908 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-bootupd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1878902] Review Request: naga - Simplified Java NIO asynchronous sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878902 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1878908] Review Request: rust-bootupd - bootloader updater
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878908 --- Comment #4 from Colin Walters --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/29099 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1878908] Review Request: rust-bootupd - bootloader updater
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878908 Steve Milner changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Steve Milner --- tl;dr: Some non-required SHOULDs are still outstanding but all MUSTs look covered. Update: + spec rpmlint rpmlint rust-bootupd.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + source rpmlint rpmlint rust-bootupd-0.1.0-3.fc32.src.rpm rust-bootupd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Bootloader -> Boot loader, Boot-loader, Boatload rust-bootupd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Bootloader -> Boot loader, Boot-loader, Boatload rust-bootupd.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/bootupd HTTP Error 404: Not Found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Clicking the link does show it's not a 404. + rpm rpmlint rpmlint /root/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/bootupd-0.1.0-3.fc32.x86_64.rpm warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. bootupd.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Bootloader -> Boot loader, Boot-loader, Boatload bootupd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Bootloader -> Boot loader, Boot-loader, Boatload bootupd.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://crates.io/crates/bootupd HTTP Error 404: Not Found bootupd.x86_64: W: empty-%postun 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Clicking the link does show it's not a 404. + sources match $ sha256sum rust-bootupd-0.1.0-3.fc32.src/bootupd-0.1.0.crate 4c90182e11829eae328c2914b50dc2d73cbbeb79e7e3ea559477acf8f1a93926 rust-bootupd-0.1.0-3.fc32.src/bootupd-0.1.0.crate $ curl -L -O https://crates.io/api/v1/crates/bootupd/0.1.0/download#/bootupd-0.1.0.crate % Total% Received % Xferd Average Speed TimeTime Time Current Dload Upload Total SpentLeft Speed 0 00 00 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0 100 29649 100 296490 0 33201 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 33201 $ sha256sum bootupd-0.1.0.crate 4c90182e11829eae328c2914b50dc2d73cbbeb79e7e3ea559477acf8f1a93926 bootupd-0.1.0.crate + Build dependencies listed in BuildRequires and %cargo_generate_buildrequires is in use. This means they are not explicitly listed in the spec since Cargo.toml is looked at. Considering this good because it's following the pattern which is provided by the documentation. + build-dependencies are not denoted in Cargo.toml, though dependencies are set and are required at build time (https://github.com/coreos/bootupd/blob/master/Cargo.toml#L15-L31) Considering this good because the results work as expected by noting the dependencies in Cargo.toml -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1878976] Review Request: python-bravado-core - Library for adding Swagger support to clients and servers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878976
Nils Philippsen changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Nils Philippsen ---
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.
[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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is
[Bug 1879544] Review Request: golang-github-mozillazg-pinyin - Tools and Golang library to convert Chinese characters to Pinyin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879544
Qiyu Yan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||yanqiy...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|yanqiy...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Qiyu Yan ---
Personally I suggest make the version of pinyin-data as a macro to make update
easiler
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/golang-github-mozillazg-
pinyin-devel/README.md
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_duplicate_files
// Should be fixed by removing duplicate files in %godoc macro or in %files
part?
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 2908160 bytes in 11 files.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_documentation
// see below, I guess some data are packaged as doc
= 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/yan/review/1879544-golang-github-mozillazg-
pinyin/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
// emitted some golang packages, since golang macros did the directories
owning
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
// in doubt, txt files in mozillazg/pinyin-data seems to be data files, while
they went to %doc
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package 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]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]:
[Bug 1828059] Review Request: boost1.73 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828059 --- Comment #2 from Denis Arnaud --- Does anybody knows how EPEL branches can be created for that boost.173 package? I've tried by creating a ticket with fedpkg (https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/28809), but with no success so far... We have no intention to use the Fedora branches, as this is explicitly an EPEL 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 1876259] Review Request: perl-URI-cpan - URLs that refer to things on the CPAN
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876259 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-bc55da4e50 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-bc55da4e50 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-bc55da4e50 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 1878143] Review Request: python-uptime - Cross-platform uptime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878143 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d5d438bef9 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-d5d438bef9 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d5d438bef9 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 1878898] Review Request: nwg-launchers - GTK-based launchers for sway and other window managers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878898 --- Comment #2 from Aleksei Bavshin --- (In reply to Bob Hepple from comment #1) Hi Bob, > I'm afraid that the construct: > > BuildRequires: cmake(nlohmann_json) > > ... has thrown me!! I can see many similar constructs in Fedora spec files > so I'm sure it must be legal, but the packaging guidelines don't document it > (I'm looking at > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CMake/) and I > can't google anything about buildrequires: cmake(...) Indeed, that's not documented. I created a ticket[1] for Fedora packaging committee to address that. `BuildRequires: cmake(...)` is a construction similar to `BuildRequires: pkgconfig(...)` with the main difference that it works with CMake configuration files and uses names suitable for CMake's `find_package` dependency resolver. In the case of this package, meson uses CMake dependency resolver when pkgconfig lookup fails, thus I'm declaring the dependency as `cmake(nlohmann_json)` I did a quick search and the only document I found was a blog post of the author of the dependency generator[2]. You can check it for a better explanaion and examples. [1] https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1019 [2] https://www.dvratil.cz/2015/03/fedora-rpm-automatic-provides-for-cmake-projects-packages/ > So I understand there is a subproject https://github.com/nlohmann/json > package and the code is included in the nwg-launchers tarball. So far so > good. No, nlohmann_json code is not included in the nwg-launchers tarball. `cmake(nlohmann_json)` pulls `json-devel` package which would provide the library. `dnf install 'cmake(nlohmann_json)'` should do the same for you. > 2/ The license for the nlohmann stuff is MIT so please reflect that in the > spec file with an appropriate comment eg: > 3/ ... > 4/ ... > 5/ ... Since the subproject is not included in the nwg-launchers source archive, this would be unnecessary. > 7/ how would you feel about adding the following to the description (or > paraphrasing it): > > it must work well on sway; > it should work as well as possible on Wayfire, i3, dwm and Openbox. It's a good idea. I'll do that. Thanks for reviewing! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879595] Review Request: memavaild - Improve responsiveness during heavy swapping
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879595 --- Comment #1 from Artem --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=51596424 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879595] New: Review Request: memavaild - Improve responsiveness during heavy swapping
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879595 Bug ID: 1879595 Summary: Review Request: memavaild - Improve responsiveness during heavy swapping Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ego.corda...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org//memavaild.spec SRPM URL: https://atim.fedorapeople.org//memavaild-0.5-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Improve responsiveness during heavy swapping: keep amount of available memory. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1862842] Review Request: icon - Icon programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862842 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-bca491b47c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-bca491b47c 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 1876259] Review Request: perl-URI-cpan - URLs that refer to things on the CPAN
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876259 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-8bb1d5473c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-8bb1d5473c 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 1878143] Review Request: python-uptime - Cross-platform uptime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878143 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-a84bbc290a has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-a84bbc290a 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 1874138] Mass Review Request: deaggregate xorg-x11-server-utils
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874138 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppi...@redhat.com --- Comment #20 from Petr Pisar --- You should review each new package in a separate bug report. Each report should reflect the package name in a summary. Each reviewed bug number should then be referred when submitting the requests for a dist-git repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1878923] Review Request: parsec - The PARSEC daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878923 Bug 1878923 depends on bug 1878237, which changed state. Bug 1878237 Summary: Review Request: rust-picky-asn1-x509 - Provides ASN1 types defined by X.509 related RFCs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878237 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 1878260] Review Request: rust-picky - Portable X.509, Jose and PKI implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878260 Bug 1878260 depends on bug 1878237, which changed state. Bug 1878237 Summary: Review Request: rust-picky-asn1-x509 - Provides ASN1 types defined by X.509 related RFCs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878237 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 1878237] Review Request: rust-picky-asn1-x509 - Provides ASN1 types defined by X.509 related RFCs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878237 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-09-16 14:47:17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1828059] Review Request: boost1.73 - The free peer-reviewed portable C++ source libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828059 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1876259] Review Request: perl-URI-cpan - URLs that refer to things on the CPAN
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876259 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-3cdcbc56e0 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-3cdcbc56e0 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 1862842] Review Request: icon - Icon programming language
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1862842 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-5b94659fbd 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-2020-5b94659fbd \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5b94659fbd 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 1878143] Review Request: python-uptime - Cross-platform uptime library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878143 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-5cbb79fe31 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-2020-5cbb79fe31 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5cbb79fe31 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 1876259] Review Request: perl-URI-cpan - URLs that refer to things on the CPAN
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876259 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-1da58546d4 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-2020-1da58546d4 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1da58546d4 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 1878923] Review Request: parsec - The PARSEC daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878923 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/parsec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1878923] Review Request: parsec - The PARSEC daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878923 Bug 1878923 depends on bug 1879482, which changed state. Bug 1879482 Summary: Review Request: rust-pkcs11 - Rust PKCS#11 Library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879482 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 1879482] Review Request: rust-pkcs11 - Rust PKCS#11 Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879482 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-09-16 14:13:16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879544] Review Request: golang-github-mozillazg-pinyin - Tools and Golang library to convert Chinese characters to Pinyin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879544 Robin Lee changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1465889 ||(DeepinDEPackageReview), ||1828148 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465889 [Bug 1465889] Tracking: Deepin Desktop related package review tracker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828148 [Bug 1828148] golang-deepin-go-lib-5.6.0.2 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1465889] Tracking: Deepin Desktop related package review tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1465889 Robin Lee changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1879544 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879544 [Bug 1879544] Review Request: golang-github-mozillazg-pinyin - Tools and Golang library to convert Chinese characters to Pinyin -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879544] New: Review Request: golang-github-mozillazg-pinyin - Tools and Golang library to convert Chinese characters to Pinyin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879544 Bug ID: 1879544 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-mozillazg-pinyin - Tools and Golang library to convert Chinese characters to Pinyin Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: robinlee.s...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/cheeselee/deepin-20-testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01663475-golang-github-mozillazg-pinyin/golang-github-mozillazg-pinyin.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/cheeselee/deepin-20-testing/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01663475-golang-github-mozillazg-pinyin/golang-github-mozillazg-pinyin-0.18.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: This package provides tools and Golang library to convert Chinese characters to Pinyin. Fedora Account System Username: cheeselee -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1878923] Review Request: parsec - The PARSEC daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878923
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Jared Smith ---
Please double-check whether the config.toml config file should be
config(noreplace), and
double-check the permissions on the /etc/parsec directory. Otherwise, the
package is APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 105 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jsmith/Documents/Fedora/Reviews/parsec/review-
parsec/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[?]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/parsec/config.toml
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: 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 parsec
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or
[Bug 1879482] Review Request: rust-pkcs11 - Rust PKCS#11 Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879482 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-pkcs11 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1878237] Review Request: rust-picky-asn1-x509 - Provides ASN1 types defined by X.509 related RFCs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878237 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-picky-asn1-x509 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879482] Review Request: rust-pkcs11 - Rust PKCS#11 Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879482
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jared Smith ---
Package is APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright*
Apache License 2.0". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /tmp/1879482-rust-pkcs11/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
pkcs11-devel , rust-pkcs11+default-devel
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests
[Bug 1878923] Review Request: parsec - The PARSEC daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878923 --- Comment #2 from Peter Robinson --- SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/parsec.spec SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/parsec-0.4.0-2.fc32.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1878923] Review Request: parsec - The PARSEC daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878923 Jared Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1878237] Review Request: rust-picky-asn1-x509 - Provides ASN1 types defined by X.509 related RFCs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878237
Jared Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Jared Smith ---
Package is APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /tmp/1878237-rust-picky-
asn1-x509/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in rust-
picky-asn1-x509-devel , rust-picky-asn1-x509+default-devel
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original
[Bug 1857767] Review Request: python-ephem - Compute positions of the planets and stars
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1857767 --- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-ephem -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1878923] Review Request: parsec - The PARSEC daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878923 --- Comment #1 from Peter Robinson --- SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/parsec.spec SRPM: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=51587790 koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=51587790 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1878923] Review Request: parsec - The PARSEC daemon
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878923 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1879482 (rust-pkcs11) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879482 [Bug 1879482] Review Request: rust-pkcs11 - Rust PKCS#11 Library -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879482] Review Request: rust-pkcs11 - Rust PKCS#11 Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879482 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1859994 (PARSEC), 1878923 Alias||rust-pkcs11 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859994 [Bug 1859994] Support PARSEC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878923 [Bug 1878923] Review Request: parsec - The PARSEC daemon -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879482] New: Review Request: rust-pkcs11 - Rust PKCS#11 Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879482 Bug ID: 1879482 Summary: Review Request: rust-pkcs11 - Rust PKCS#11 Library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pbrobin...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora SPEC: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rust-pkcs11.spec SRPM: https://pbrobinson.fedorapeople.org/rust-pkcs11-0.5.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Rust PKCS#11 Library FAS: pbrobinson koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=51584502 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1876864] Review Request: kealib - KEA is an HDF5 Based Raster File Format as a GDAL plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1876864 --- Comment #4 from markusN --- Updated SPEC file, following your suggestions (thanks!): - https://data.neteler.org/tmp/kealib.spec - https://data.neteler.org/tmp/kealib-1.4.13-2.fc32.src.rpm - build test on COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/neteler/kealib/build/1663359/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879291] Review Request: python-bokeh - Interactive plots and applications in the browser from Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879291
--- Comment #6 from Charalampos Stratakis ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License",
"Apache License (v2.0)", "Expat License BSD 3-clause "New" or
"Revised" License", "Expat License Apache License (v2.0)", "Expat
License". 1463 files have unknown license.
[X]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
Nitpick here: Licensing breakdown could be more specific.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
There are some files with which have a license somewhere in the middle and they
mention other libraries there. For example on
bokeh/server/static/js/bokeh-widgets.legacy.js I see:
535: /* flatpickr/dist/flatpickr.js */ function _(require, module, exports) {
/* flatpickr v4.6.3, @license MIT */
I am not very familiar with javascript code. Would flatpickr in this case be
considered a bundled library?
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
Nitpick: Increment the release or place the second changelog entry within the
first. It's more for consistency and not having two changelog entries with the
same version/release. But this is more of a cosmetic change, not a blocker.
[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
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[?]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
The package provides a binary as well. If its primary purpose is to utilize the
binary and use the package as an application, then the name 'bokeh' instead of
'python-bokeh' would be more appropriate. If its main purpose is to be used as
a library then it would be the other way around. What would be then its primary
usage?
[X]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[X]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[X]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[X]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[X]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[X]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR:
[Bug 1878898] Review Request: nwg-launchers - GTK-based launchers for sway and other window managers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878898 Bob Hepple changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bob.hep...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Bob Hepple --- Hi Aleksei, I'm afraid that the construct: BuildRequires: cmake(nlohmann_json) ... has thrown me!! I can see many similar constructs in Fedora spec files so I'm sure it must be legal, but the packaging guidelines don't document it (I'm looking at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CMake/) and I can't google anything about buildrequires: cmake(...) So I understand there is a subproject https://github.com/nlohmann/json package and the code is included in the nwg-launchers tarball. So far so good. But my local rpmbuild isn't able to grok it: $ rpmbuild -ba nwg-launchers.spec setting SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH=1600041600 error: Failed build dependencies: cmake(nlohmann_json) is needed by nwg-launchers-0.3.3-0.1.fc31.x86_64 I'd like to understand this as it's something I could use in my own packaging - in the past I have had to create separate discrete packages in this situation - so can you please point me at the doco for the Buildrequires: cmake(...) construct? 2/ The license for the nlohmann stuff is MIT so please reflect that in the spec file with an appropriate comment eg: # the subproject 'nlohmann' is licensed as MIT: License:GPLv3+ and MIT 3/ The file subprojects/nlohmann_json/third_party/cpplint/LICENSE indicates google licensing... I can't spot what name this is licensed as (on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing) but it does require that the copyright notice be included with an appropriate comment in the spec file. 4/ The file subprojects/nlohmann_json/include/nlohmann/thirdparty/hedley/hedley.hpp is marked CC0-1.0. Please add it to the list of licenses if the code is included in the rpm with an appropriate comment in the spec file. 5/ The file subprojects/nlohmann_json/mark/src/complexity.h is marked Apache License, Version 2.0. Please add it to the list of licenses if the code is included in the rpm with an appropriate comment in the spec file. 6/ I'm assuming that the code in subprojects/nlohmann_json/benchmarks is not included in the final rpm 7/ how would you feel about adding the following to the description (or paraphrasing it): it must work well on sway; it should work as well as possible on Wayfire, i3, dwm and Openbox. ... I think it could be useful to a potential installer. Thanks Bob -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879291] Review Request: python-bokeh - Interactive plots and applications in the browser from Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879291 --- Comment #5 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- Thanks for the comments, Charalampos. I've made the suggested changes now. Turns out some of the deps aren't up to date enough in F32, so bokeh can't be used on Fedora <= 32. * Wed Sep 16 2020 Ankur Sinha - 2.2.1-1 - Remove dependency generator: no longer needed since F30 - Remove python provide line: no longer needed for F33+ Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-bokeh/python-bokeh.spec SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/python-bokeh/python-bokeh-2.2.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Since all members of the Neuro SIG need to be able to work with our specs, I'd prefer to hold off on using the pyproject-rpm macros until they're in the packaging guidelines. (I've used them in projects that use the pyproject.toml specification but there it was necessary to do so). Cheers, -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879291] Review Request: python-bokeh - Interactive plots and applications in the browser from Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879291 --- Comment #4 from Charalampos Stratakis --- You can use the pyproject-rpm-macros to simplify the SPEC a lot, assuming that the upstream metadata is correct. Could you take a look at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros/blob/master/f/README.md ? Here is an example of a SPEC conversion: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-more-itertools/pull-request/7#request_diff -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879291] Review Request: python-bokeh - Interactive plots and applications in the browser from Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879291
--- Comment #3 from Charalampos Stratakis ---
The %{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{pypi_name}} macro can be
removed if the package is intended only for rawhide and/or F33. It's still
required for Fedora <= 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 1879291] Review Request: python-bokeh - Interactive plots and applications in the browser from Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879291
--- Comment #2 from Charalampos Stratakis ---
%{?python_enable_dependency_generator} can be removed as it's enabled by
default since Fedora 30
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1879291] Review Request: python-bokeh - Interactive plots and applications in the browser from Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879291 Charalampos Stratakis changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||cstra...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cstra...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Charalampos Stratakis --- Will review 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 1878971] Review Request: python-jsonref - An implementation of JSON Reference for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878971
Nils Philippsen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nphil...@redhat.com
Assignee|m...@fabian-affolter.ch |nphil...@redhat.com
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Nils Philippsen ---
I'll take this one because it blocks deployment of a consumer of this package.
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.
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[-]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into
[Bug 1878260] Review Request: rust-picky - Portable X.509, Jose and PKI implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878260 Bug 1878260 depends on bug 1878236, which changed state. Bug 1878236 Summary: Review Request: rust-picky-asn1-der - ASN.1-DER subset for serde https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878236 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 1878234] Review Request: rust-picky-asn1 - Provide ASN.1 simple types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878234 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-09-16 08:58:23 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1878237] Review Request: rust-picky-asn1-x509 - Provides ASN1 types defined by X.509 related RFCs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878237 Bug 1878237 depends on bug 1878236, which changed state. Bug 1878236 Summary: Review Request: rust-picky-asn1-der - ASN.1-DER subset for serde https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878236 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 1878237] Review Request: rust-picky-asn1-x509 - Provides ASN1 types defined by X.509 related RFCs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878237 Bug 1878237 depends on bug 1878234, which changed state. Bug 1878234 Summary: Review Request: rust-picky-asn1 - Provide ASN.1 simple types https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878234 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 1878236] Review Request: rust-picky-asn1-der - ASN.1-DER subset for serde
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878236 Peter Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2020-09-16 08:58:35 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1878260] Review Request: rust-picky - Portable X.509, Jose and PKI implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878260 Bug 1878260 depends on bug 1878234, which changed state. Bug 1878234 Summary: Review Request: rust-picky-asn1 - Provide ASN.1 simple types https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878234 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 1878236] Review Request: rust-picky-asn1-der - ASN.1-DER subset for serde
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878236 Bug 1878236 depends on bug 1878234, which changed state. Bug 1878234 Summary: Review Request: rust-picky-asn1 - Provide ASN.1 simple types https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878234 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
