[Bug 1882617] Review Request: php-pecl-ip2location - Get geo location information of an IP address
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882617 --- Comment #5 from Remi Collet --- For memory: cleanup: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/pecl/php-pecl-ip2location.git/commit/?h=fedora=4148ff708b312bd7c046b8afbafa4e4093cdf2d9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1882617] Review Request: php-pecl-ip2location - Get geo location information of an IP address
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882617
--- Comment #4 from Remi Collet ---
> Release:8%{?dist}%{!?nophptag:%(%{__php} -r 'echo
> ".".PHP_MAJOR_VERSION.".".PHP_MINOR_VERSION;')}
> Why do you need to add the PHP version to the release tag? Is that a thing
> specific to your repo that you forgot to change?
Yes, kind of Magic for my repo, will clean it, and also package URL
Thanks for the review
SCM requests
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/30263
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/30264
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/30265
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1883251] Review Request: php-phpspec-prophecy-phpunit - Integrating the Prophecy mocking library in PHPUnit test cases
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1883251 --- Comment #2 from Remi Collet --- > php-phpspec-prophecy-phpunit.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog > 1.12.0-1 ['2.0.1-1.fc34', '2.0.1-1'] Will fix it during import Thanks for the review SCM requests: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/30260 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/30261 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/30262 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1877006] Review Request: smf-spf - Mail filter for Sender Policy Framework verification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1877006
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- NOt needed:
BuildRequires: systemd-units
Requires(post): systemd-units
Requires(preun): systemd-units
Requires(postun): systemd-units
Use:
BuildRequires: systemd-rpm-macros
- Not needed, this is already taken care of by Requires(pre): shadow-utils :
Requires(pre): /usr/bin/getent, /usr/sbin/groupadd, /usr/sbin/useradd,
/usr/sbin/usermod
- %set_build_flags OPTFLAGS="%{optflags}"
%make_build
%set_build_flags define otpflags so this is meaningless.
if you want to keep optflags like this just switch back to
%make_build OPTFLAGS="%{optflags}"
also you need to define LDFLAGS similarly with %build_ldflags
- Notify upstream about their obsoletet FSF address (don't patch it)
smf-spf.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/smf-spf/COPYING
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No
copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0". 21 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/golang-nanomsg-mangos-3/review-golang-
nanomsg-mangos-3/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 184320 bytes in 64 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in golang-
nanomsg-mangos-3-devel
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]:
[Bug 1888167] Review Request: golang-nanomsg-mangos-3 - Golang implementation of nanomsg's "Scalablilty Protocols"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888167
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
%build
for cmd in macat/macat perf; do
%gobuild -o %{gobuilddir}/bin/$(basename $cmd) %{goipath}/$cmd
done
perf binary is using a name too generic that might conflict with other
packages, please rename it to a more specific name.
- License ok
- Latest version packaged
- Builds in mock
- No rpmlint errors
- Conforms to Packaging Guidelines
Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1763894] Review Request: vkBasalt - Vulkan post processing layer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763894
--- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- This need to be versioned or maybe put in in a private directory with option
introduced in 0.3.2.3
%{_libdir}/libvkbasalt.so
- Bump to 0.3.2.3
- There are some ASL 2.0 files:
Apache License 2.0
--
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/cast_utils.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/hash_util.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/hash_vk_types.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_dispatch_table_helper.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_enum_string_helper.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_extension_helper.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_format_utils.cpp
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_format_utils.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_icd.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_layer.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_layer_config.cpp
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_layer_config.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_layer_data.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_layer_dispatch_table.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_layer_extension_utils.cpp
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_layer_extension_utils.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_layer_logging.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_layer_utils.cpp
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_layer_utils.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_loader_platform.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_object_types.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_platform.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_safe_struct.cpp
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_safe_struct.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_sdk_platform.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_typemap_helper.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vk_validation_error_messages.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_android.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_beta.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_core.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_fuchsia.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_ggp.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_ios.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_macos.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_metal.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_vi.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_wayland.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_win32.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_xcb.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_xlib.h
vkBasalt-0.3.2.2/include/vulkan/vulkan_xlib_xrandr.h
Please include ASL 2.0 to the License field and add a comment explaining the
license breakdown.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/#_devel_packages
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "zlib/libpng license", "Expat License",
"the Unlicense Expat License", "Khronos License", "Apache License
2.0", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 Apache License 2.0", "BSD
3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 108 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/vkBasalt/review-vkBasalt/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.
[-]: 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
[Bug 1888121] Review Request: commit-stream - Github event API consumer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888121 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1887842] Review Request: gitjacker - Leak git repositories from misconfigured websites
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887842
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Test fails:
Testingin: /builddir/build/BUILD/gitjacker-0.0.2/_build/src
PATH:
/builddir/build/BUILD/gitjacker-0.0.2/_build/bin:/usr/lib64/ccache:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/usr/local/sbin
GOPATH: /builddir/build/BUILD/gitjacker-0.0.2/_build:/usr/share/gocode
GO111MODULE: off
command: go test -buildmode pie -compiler gc -ldflags " -X
github.com/liamg/gitjacker/version=0.0.2 -extldflags '-Wl,-z,relro
-Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-z,now -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld '"
testing: github.com/liamg/gitjacker
github.com/liamg/gitjacker/internal/pkg/gitjacker
--- FAIL: TestRetrieval (0.00s)
retriever_test.go:93: exec: "git": executable file not found in $PATH
FAIL
exit status 1
FAILgithub.com/liamg/gitjacker/internal/pkg/gitjacker 0.004s
Add git-core to the BR:
%if %{with check}
# Tests
BuildRequires: golang(github.com/magiconair/properties/assert)
BuildRequires: git-core
%endif
- License ok
- Latest version packaged
- Builds in mock
- No rpmlint errors
- Conforms to Packaging Guidelines
Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1887709] Mamba package for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887709
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Tips for your libsmf spec:
- Not used if Fedora
Group: Applications/Multimedia
Group: Development/Libraries
- Use make instead of %{__make} as __ macro are reserved for rpm private use
- Not needed:
%{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}
%clean
%{__rm} -rf %{buildroot}
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
- %{__make} DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install → %make_install
- %{__make} %{_smp_mflags} → %make_build
- Do not put another %{__make} DESTDIR=%{buildroot} install in %build
- COPYING must be installed with %license not %doc in %files
- Do not glob all that, be more specific
%{_bindir}/*
%{_libdir}/*
%{_datadir}/man/*
%files devel
%{_includedir}/*
- Requires needs arch info with isa:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
- Use a more descriptive summary
- Description must be below 80 characters per line.
- Add a newline between your changelog entries
)Make a separate review request for that 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 1887709] Mamba package for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887709
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Use a link for source:
Source0:
https://github.com/brummer10/Mamba/archive/v%{version}/Mamba-%{version}.tar.gz
[…]
%autosetup -n Mamba-%{version}
- Be more specific here:
%{_bindir}/*
%{_datadir}/*
- Version is 1.7 without 0
Version: 1.7
- Build fails:
DEBUG util.py:636: Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:04 ago on Fri Nov 6
07:17:55 2020.
DEBUG util.py:634: No matching package to install: 'libsmf-devel'
DEBUG util.py:634: Not all dependencies satisfied
DEBUG util.py:634: Error: Some packages could not be found.
Please package libsmf.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1880731] Review Request: sweet-gtk-theme - Light and dark, colorful GTK+ theme
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880731
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Not needed for a noarch package:
%global debug_package %{nil}
- Please bump to latest comit to get fix for Cinnamon colors
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 665 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/sweet-
gtk-theme/review-sweet-gtk-theme/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin,
[Bug 1887453] Review Request: richacl - Rich Access Control List utilities and dynamic library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887453 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC||zebo...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Last Closed||2020-11-06 05:54:05 --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- If the package already exists in Fedora, you don't need a re-review, you need instead to contact the maintainer to ask them to package it for EPEL8. I suggest you file a bug requesting it here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora=richacl -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1885048] Review Request: foma - Xerox-compatible finite-state compiler
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885048
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
LGTM.
- Typo here:
Requires: Requires: pkgconfig
Remove the extra Requires.
- Please add a comment above the patch to justify it
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
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/
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/foma
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
"Apache License 2.0", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later". 20
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/foma/review-foma/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.
[-]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec
[Bug 1886798] Review Request: ghc-fixed - Signed 15.16 precision fixed point arithmetic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886798
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 6
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-fixed/review-ghc-fixed/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
[Bug 1886356] Review Request: gamescope - Micro-compositor for video games on Wayland
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886356
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Please add version-release info in the changelog
gamescope.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License",
"NTP License (legal disclaimer)". 21 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/gamescope/review-gamescope/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.
[-]: 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 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]:
[Bug 1885810] Review Request: emacs-with-editor - Use Emacsclient as the editor of child processes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885810
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Release starts at 1 in Fedora:
Release:1%{?dist}
- Bump to 3.0.2
- Not needed anymore:
%post
/sbin/install-info %{_infodir}/%{pkg}.info %{_infodir}/dir || :
%preun
if [ $1 = 0 ] ; then
/sbin/install-info --delete %{_infodir}/%{pkg}.info %{_infodir}/dir || :
fi
- Use -p to keep timestamps:
install -D -p -m 644 %{pkg}.info %{buildroot}/%{_infodir}/%{pkg}.info
install -D -p -m 644 -t %{buildroot}/%{_emacs_sitelispdir}/%{pkg} \
%{pkg}-autoloads.el %{pkg}.el %{pkg}.elc
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", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
later". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/bob/packaging/review/emacs-with-editor/review-emacs-with-
editor/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if
package has .info files.
Note: Texinfo .info file(s) in emacs-with-editor
[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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if
[Bug 1885430] Review Request: qatlib - Intel® QuickAssist Technology Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
Carl George 鸞 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #13 from Carl George 鸞 ---
The automated review looks mostly good, just a two items left that need to be
fixed.
1. Update the ExcludeArch tag as described in comment 12.
2. Add a comments explaining the license breakdown. Some examples are given in
the guidelines [0].
Those are simple enough that I won't hold up the review any longer. Just fix
them prior to importing the SRPM to distgit.
PACKAGE APPROVED.
[0]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_multiple_licensing_scenarios
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License", "BSD 4-clause "Original" or "Old" License Apache License
1.0", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License GNU General Public
License, Version 2", "OpenSSL License BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in
/home/carl/packaging/reviews/1885430-qatlib/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: 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.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
Note: Bundled is now permitted by guidelines.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
Note: Failing arches noted in ExcludeArch and will have bugs opened
after package is imported.
[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
[Bug 1892101] Review Request: fbthrift - Facebook's branch of Apache Thrift, including a new C++ server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1892101 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-53f08a8053 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-2020-53f08a8053 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-53f08a8053 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 1895203] Review Request: python-pyaib - Python Framework for writing IRC Bots using gevent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895203 Davide Cavalca changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-pyaib/python-pyaib.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-pyaib/python-pyaib-2.1.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Python Async IrcBot framework (pyaib) is an easy to use framework for writing IRC bots. pyaib uses gevent for its Asynchronous bits. Fedora Account System Username: dcavalca -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1891639] Review Request: fizz - A C++14 implementation of the TLS-1.3 standard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891639 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-53f08a8053 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-2020-53f08a8053 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-53f08a8053 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 1891640] Review Request: wangle - Framework for building services in a consistent/modular/composable way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891640 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-53f08a8053 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-2020-53f08a8053 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-53f08a8053 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-53f08a8053 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-2020-53f08a8053 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-53f08a8053 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 1892101] Review Request: fbthrift - Facebook's branch of Apache Thrift, including a new C++ server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1892101 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-45065fae47 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-2020-45065fae47 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-45065fae47 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 1887621] Review Request: folly - An open-source C++ library developed and used at Facebook
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887621 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-45065fae47 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-2020-45065fae47 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-45065fae47 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 1891640] Review Request: wangle - Framework for building services in a consistent/modular/composable way
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891640 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-45065fae47 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-2020-45065fae47 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-45065fae47 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 1891639] Review Request: fizz - A C++14 implementation of the TLS-1.3 standard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891639 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-45065fae47 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-2020-45065fae47 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-45065fae47 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 1895203] Review Request: python-pyaib - Python Framework for writing IRC Bots using gevent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895203 Davide Cavalca changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-pyaib.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org/review/python-pyaib-2.1.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Python Async IrcBot framework (pyaib) is an easy to use framework for writing IRC bots. pyaib uses gevent for its Asynchronous bits. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1895203] New: Review Request: python-pyaib - Python Framework for writing IRC Bots using gevent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895203 Bug ID: 1895203 Summary: Review Request: python-pyaib - Python Framework for writing IRC Bots using gevent Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: dcava...@fb.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org//python-pyaib.spec SRPM URL: https://dcavalca.fedorapeople.org//python-pyaib-2.1.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Python Async IrcBot framework (pyaib) is an easy to use framework for writing IRC bots. pyaib uses gevent for its Asynchronous bits. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1895203] Review Request: python-pyaib - Python Framework for writing IRC Bots using gevent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895203 --- Comment #1 from Davide Cavalca --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55016690 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1888975] Review Request: golang-github-akamensky-argparse - Argparse for Golang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888975 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-06 01:14:42 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-3cc50641a1 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1888452] Review Request: python-nuheat - Python library for NuHeat Signature radiant floor thermostats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888452 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-06 01:14:47 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-f28357bd61 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1885493] Review Request: python-pyinels - Python library for iNels BUS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885493 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-06 01:14:37 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-044bb477b3 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1821496] Review Request: open-policy-agent - Open source, general-purpose policy engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821496 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-06 01:14:35 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-e0a389dabf has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1888976] Review Request: snowcrash - Polyglot payload generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888976 Bug 1888976 depends on bug 1888975, which changed state. Bug 1888975 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-akamensky-argparse - Argparse for Golang https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888975 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-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-pyhomematic - Python Homematic interface
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879750 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-11-06 01:14:44 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-9f60f0dc9e has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1882476] Review Request: python-async-upnp-client - Async Python UPnP Client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882476 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-75fdce7df4 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1891160] Review Request: neovim-qt - Qt GUI for Neovim
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891160
jimt...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jimt...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Micah Shennum ---
INFORMAL Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
FWIW I edited this review using this neovim package.
Question about %if %{with tests}: I have not seen that one before, is it a
standard thing?
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[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", "ISC License", "GNU Lesser General
Public License v3.0 or later". 139 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/jimtahu/Projects/fedora/1891160-neovim-qt/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.
[?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[?]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[Bug 1885430] Review Request: qatlib - Intel® QuickAssist Technology Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430
--- Comment #12 from Carl George 鸞 ---
> app -> openssl:libcrypto_EVP -> qat_engine -> qat_lib ->
> openssl:libcrypto_EVP -> qat_engine -> qat_lib -> REPEAT
I still don't understand this, but I'm admittedly not a crypto expert.
Regardless, if it's only possible for this to function with bundled libcrypto,
it is permissible for the package to do that. We've got the bundled library
provides in place, so we are covered.
> I checked again and the guideline is to still leave the license on the file.
> In order to address the noise/visual clutter in the file we replaced the full
> header with the SPDX License Identifier: `# SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT`
> Is this ok?
It's still redundant, but it's a big improvement and I'll take it.
> Thanks. I haven't run the build yet any alternative architectures. Is it
> something I have to do? If yes, which architectures should I try?
When you build the package in Fedora it will attempt to build on all
architectures, unless they are excluded. I took your copr srpm and submitted
it as a scratch build in Fedora's build system with this command:
koji build --scratch rawhide qatlib-20.08.0-1.fc34.src.rpm
Here is the result where you can see all the architectures it attempted to
build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55010398
Based on that, I think the appropriate exclusion will look like this:
ExcludeArch: %{arm} aarch64 %{power64} s390x
Remember after review you'll need to open bugzillas for each of those, mark
them as blocking the tracker bugs listed in the guidelines [0], and include
links to each of them in spec file comments.
Other than that slight adjustment to the ExcludeArch tag, I think this looks
good. I'm running fedora-review on it now.
[0]
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_build_failures
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1885421] Review Request: marcsabatella-campania-fonts - Font for Roman numeral analysis (music theory)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885421 --- Comment #2 from Jerry James --- Thank you for the review! There will be a short delay before I build this, as I need to make some changes to the mscore package to take advantage of this, and to bring mscore into compliance with the latest font guidelines. Hopefully it won't take more than a couple of days. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1895186] New: Review Request: mingw-python-lxml - MinGW Windows Python lxml library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895186 Bug ID: 1895186 Summary: Review Request: mingw-python-lxml - MinGW Windows Python lxml library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-lxml.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-lxml-4.5.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows Python lxml library Fedora Account System Username: smani Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55007145 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1895185] New: Review Request: mingw-python-setuptools_scm - MinGW Windows Python setuptools_scm library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895185 Bug ID: 1895185 Summary: Review Request: mingw-python-setuptools_scm - MinGW Windows Python setuptools_scm library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-setuptools_scm.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-setuptools_scm-4.1.2-2.fc34.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows Python setuptools_scm library Fedora Account System Username: smani Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55006986 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1895179] New: Review Request: mingw-python-pyyaml - MinGW Windows Python pyyaml library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895179 Bug ID: 1895179 Summary: Review Request: mingw-python-pyyaml - MinGW Windows Python pyyaml library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-pyyaml.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-pyyaml-5.3.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows Python pyyaml library Fedora Account System Username: smani Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55006821 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1895181] New: Review Request: mingw-python-shapely - MinGW Windows Python shapely library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895181 Bug ID: 1895181 Summary: Review Request: mingw-python-shapely - MinGW Windows Python shapely library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-shapely.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-shapely-1.7.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows Python shapely library Fedora Account System Username: smani Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55006844 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1895175] New: Review Request: mingw-python-markupsafe - MinGW Windows Python markupsafe library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895175 Bug ID: 1895175 Summary: Review Request: mingw-python-markupsafe - MinGW Windows Python markupsafe library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-markupsafe.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-markupsafe-1.1.1-2.fc34.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows Python markupsafe library Fedora Account System Username: smani Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55006381 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1895174] New: Review Request: mingw-python-markupsafe - MinGW Windows Python markupsafe library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895174 Bug ID: 1895174 Summary: Review Request: mingw-python-markupsafe - MinGW Windows Python markupsafe library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-markupsafe.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-markupsafe-1.1.1-2.fc34.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows Python markupsafe library Fedora Account System Username: smani Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55006381 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1895172] New: Review Request: mingw-python-OWSLib - MinGW Windows Python OWSLib library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895172 Bug ID: 1895172 Summary: Review Request: mingw-python-OWSLib - MinGW Windows Python OWSLib library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-OWSLib.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-OWSLib-0.20.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows Python OWSLib library Fedora Account System Username: smani Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55005862 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1895171] New: Review Request: mingw-python-OWSLib - MinGW Windows Python OWSLib library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895171 Bug ID: 1895171 Summary: Review Request: mingw-python-OWSLib - MinGW Windows Python OWSLib library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-OWSLib.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-OWSLib-0.20.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows Python OWSLib library Fedora Account System Username: smani Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55005862 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1895168] New: Review Request: mingw-python-affine - MinGW Windows Python affine library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895168 Bug ID: 1895168 Summary: Review Request: mingw-python-affine - MinGW Windows Python affine library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-affine.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-affine-2.3.0-2.fc34.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows Python affine library Fedora Account System Username: smani Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55005723 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1895167] New: Review Request: mingw-python-urllib3 - MinGW Windows Python urllib3 library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895167 Bug ID: 1895167 Summary: Review Request: mingw-python-urllib3 - MinGW Windows Python urllib3 library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-urllib3.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-urllib3-1.25.10-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows Python urllib3 library Fedora Account System Username: smani Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55005597 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1895165] New: Review Request: mingw-python-pygments - MinGW Windows Python pygments library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895165 Bug ID: 1895165 Summary: Review Request: mingw-python-pygments - MinGW Windows Python pygments library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-pygments.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-pygments-2.7.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows Python pygments library Fedora Account System Username: smani Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55005450 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1895164] New: Review Request: mingw-python-six - MinGW Windows Python six library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895164 Bug ID: 1895164 Summary: Review Request: mingw-python-six - MinGW Windows Python six library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-six.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-six-1.15.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows Python six library Fedora Account System Username: smani Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55005317 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1895162] New: Review Request: mingw-python-idna - MinGW Windows Python idna library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895162 Bug ID: 1895162 Summary: Review Request: mingw-python-idna - MinGW Windows Python idna library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-idna.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-idna-2.10-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows Python idna library Fedora Account System Username: smani Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55005148 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1895161] New: Review Request: mingw-python-chardet - MinGW Windows Python chardet library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895161 Bug ID: 1895161 Summary: Review Request: mingw-python-chardet - MinGW Windows Python chardet library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-chardet.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-chardet-3.0.4-2.fc34.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows Python chardet library Fedora Account System Username: smani Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55005015 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1895157] New: Review Request: mingw-python-pytz - MinGW Windows Python pytz library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895157 Bug ID: 1895157 Summary: Review Request: mingw-python-pytz - MinGW Windows Python pytz library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-pytz.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-pytz-2020.4-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows Python pytz library Fedora Account System Username: smani Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55004610 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884085] Review Request: prewikka-updatedb - Database update scripts for prewikka
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884085 --- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/prewikka-updatedb -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1895150] New: Review Request: rubiks - Rubiks cube solvers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895150 Bug ID: 1895150 Summary: Review Request: rubiks - Rubiks cube solvers Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganje...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/rubiks/rubiks.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/rubiks/rubiks-20070912-1.fc34.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This package contains several different Rubik's cube solvers. They can be invoked from the command line or used through sagemath. Michael Reid (GPL+) - optimal - uses many pre-computed tables to find an optimal solution to the 3x3x3 Rubik's cube Dik T. Winter (MIT) - dikcube - uses Kociemba's algorithm to iteratively find a short solution to the 3x3x3 Rubik's cube - size222 - solves a 2x2x2 Rubik's cube Eric Dietz (GPLv2+) - cu2 - A fast, non-optimal 2x2x2 solver - cubex - A fast, non-optimal 3x3x3 solver - mcube - A fast, non-optimal 4x4x4 solver -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1885495] Review Request: qatengine - Intel(R) QuickAssist Technology (QAT) OpenSSL Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885495 Carl George 鸞 changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(c...@redhat.com) | |needinfo?(c...@redhat.com) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1888967] Review Request: golang-github-charmbracelet-glamour - Stylesheet-based markdown rendering for your CLI apps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888967 --- Comment #2 from Joe Doss --- Thank you Robert-André. I will close out all the bugs as requested. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1895108] Review Request: python-b2sdk - Backblaze B2 SDK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895108 Jonny Heggheim changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1895111 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895111 [Bug 1895111] Review packages needed for B2 backend -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1894370] Review Request: python-logfury - Library for logging of method calls for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894370 Jonny Heggheim changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1895111 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895111 [Bug 1895111] Review packages needed for B2 backend -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1895108] Review Request: python-b2sdk - Backblaze B2 SDK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895108 --- Comment #1 from Jonny Heggheim --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=54993657 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1895108] New: Review Request: python-b2sdk - Backblaze B2 SDK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895108 Bug ID: 1895108 Summary: Review Request: python-b2sdk - Backblaze B2 SDK Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: heg...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org//python-b2sdk.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org//python-b2sdk-1.2.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Python library and a few handy utilities for easy access to all of the capabilities of B2 Cloud Storage. B2 command-line tool is an example of how it can be used to provide command-line access to the B2 service, but there are many possible applications (including FUSE filesystems, storage backend drivers for backup applications etc). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1895108] Review Request: python-b2sdk - Backblaze B2 SDK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895108 Jonny Heggheim changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #2 from Jonny Heggheim --- Depends on bug 1894370. Make it possible to use the B2 backend for Duplicity. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1885430] Review Request: qatlib - Intel® QuickAssist Technology Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885430 --- Comment #11 from giovanni.cabi...@intel.com --- I uploaded a new version of the SPEC and the RPM: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/qatlib/v20_08/rpm/qatlib.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/qatlib/v20_08/rpm/qatlib-20.08.0-1.fc33.src.rpm I attempted a build in copr (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/gcabiddu/qatlib/build/1745809/) for the following targets: - centos-stream-aarch64 - centos-stream-x86_64 - fedora-eln-aarch64 - fedora-eln-s390x - fedora-eln-x86_64 - fedora-rawhide-aarch64 - fedora-rawhide-s390x - fedora-rawhide-x86_64 As I foreseen the build fails on aarch64 and s390x. I excluded those archs in the new revision of the spec. The build is also failing for fedora-eln-x86_64, however the failure seems to be related to a dnf problem not related to qatlib. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1893901] Review Request: ansible-base - A radically simple IT automation system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1893901 farro...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||farro...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from farro...@redhat.com --- @Kevin : I'm still myself confused with ansible vs ansible-base : when I read latest "Bullhorn" mail, I see that both ansible and ansible-base seem to exist : https://mailchi.mp/redhat/the-bullhorn-13 While it seems that ansible itself (2.10) can be used a simple replacement for previous ansible, the new ansible-base seems "lightweight" and only just core and one or two plugins. Do you still plan to have ansible itself targetting 2.10 (like upstream) or just packaging from now ansible-base (and forget about ansible, which still seems to exist) ? :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1080143] Review Request: adminer - Web gui for database manipulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080143 --- Comment #8 from Ben Cotton --- This message is a reminder that EPEL 6 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for EPEL 6 on 2020-11-30. It is policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a 'version' of 'el6'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later EPEL version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before EPEL 6 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version, you are encouraged to change the 'version' to a later version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1080143] Review Request: adminer - Web gui for database manipulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080143 --- Comment #7 from Ben Cotton --- This message is a reminder that EPEL 6 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for EPEL 6 on 2020-11-30. It is our policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a 'version' of 'el6'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later EPEL version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before EPEL 6 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1880735] Review Request: jakarta-mail - Jakarta Mail API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880735 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jakarta-mail -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1880735] Review Request: jakarta-mail - Jakarta Mail API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880735 --- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini --- Thanks for the review! The 2.0.0 update is blocked for now, because it needs to be coordinated with other Jakarta EE 9 updates. https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/30254 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1887470] Review Request: libtraceevent - library to parse raw trace event formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887470
Jerome Marchand changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jmarc...@redhat.com
--- Comment #5 from Jerome Marchand ---
(In reply to Zamir SUN from comment #0)
> RPMlint:
>
> libtraceevent.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink
> /usr/lib64/libtraceevent.so.1.1.0
> libtraceevent-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> libtraceevent-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
> /usr/lib64/libtraceevent.so.1 libtraceevent.so.1.1.0
>
> I'm trying to follow the way glibc separates package, so the real file stays
> in libtraceevent while symlink goes to -devel. If this is not the suggested
> way, I'd like to know the proper way for it.
It's not a matter of real file vs symlink, it's a matter of versioned /
unversioned shared libraries. The versioned libraries, against which programs
are linked, belong to the main package. The unversioned libraries (as well as
static libraries) belong to the devel package, because they are only needed
when compiling.
There is more info in the packaging guidelines:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages
So your %files section should contain %{_libdir}/libtraceevent.so.*
and the "%files devel" section should contain %{_libdir}/libtraceevent.so
Beside that, I didn't see anything wrong with the current spec file. I'm no
packaging expert though.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1889768] Review Request: oraculum - Backend and API for Fedora QA Dashboard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1889768 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mhron...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Miro Hrončok --- One more thing that seems a bit odd. oraculum is not on PyPI. This is not (yet) a requirement in the Python guidelines, but it makes sense to me, when the package provides python3dist(oraculum) that `pip install oraculum` should install more or less the same thing. Otherwise the spec looks sane and I'll proceed with Fedora-Review shortly. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1894633] Review Request: perl-Image-PNG-Libpng - Perl interface to the libpng library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894633 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jples...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jples...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1894895] Review Request: seqan3 - The modern C++ library for sequence analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894895 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/seqan3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1881782] Review Request: accel-config - Utility library for configuring the accelerator subsystem
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881782 --- Comment #14 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/accel-config -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1893732] Review Request: python-poetry-core - Poetry PEP 517 Build Backend
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1893732 --- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-poetry-core -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1810293] Review Request: seqan3 - The modern C++ library for sequence analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1810293 Antonio T. sagitter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2020-11-05 12:37:56 --- Comment #17 from Antonio T. sagitter --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1894895 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1894895] Review Request: seqan3 - The modern C++ library for sequence analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894895 Antonio T. sagitter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anto.tra...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Antonio T. sagitter --- *** Bug 1810293 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1894633] Review Request: perl-Image-PNG-Libpng - Perl interface to the libpng library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894633 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1894911 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894911 [Bug 1894911] Review Request: perl-PDF-Builder - Creation and modification of PDF files in Perl -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1894911] Review Request: perl-PDF-Builder - Creation and modification of PDF files in Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894911 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1893477 Depends On||1894633 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1893477 [Bug 1893477] gscan2pdf-2.10.0 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894633 [Bug 1894633] Review Request: perl-Image-PNG-Libpng - Perl interface to the libpng 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 1894911] New: Review Request: perl-PDF-Builder - Creation and modification of PDF files in Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894911 Bug ID: 1894911 Summary: Review Request: perl-PDF-Builder - Creation and modification of PDF files in Perl Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-PDF-Builder/perl-PDF-Builder.spec SRPM URL: https://ppisar.fedorapeople.org/perl-PDF-Builder/perl-PDF-Builder-3.019-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: This Perl library enables you to create, import and modify documents in Portagble Document Format (mostly compliant to PDF 1.4 version). Fedora Account System Username: ppisar -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1810293] Review Request: seqan3 - The modern C++ library for sequence analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1810293 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(sanjay.ankur@gmai | |l.com) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1894895] Review Request: seqan3 - The modern C++ library for sequence analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894895 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sanjay.an...@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 1894895] Review Request: seqan3 - The modern C++ library for sequence analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894895 Antonio T. sagitter changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1810293 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1810293 [Bug 1810293] Review Request: seqan3 - The modern C++ library for sequence analysis -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1810293] Review Request: seqan3 - The modern C++ library for sequence analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1810293 Antonio T. sagitter changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1894895 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894895 [Bug 1894895] Review Request: seqan3 - The modern C++ library for sequence analysis -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1810293] Review Request: seqan3 - The modern C++ library for sequence analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1810293 Antonio T. sagitter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(sanjay.ankur@gmai ||l.com) --- Comment #16 from Antonio T. sagitter --- @Ankur, i'm duplicating this review ticket because my FAS mail in changed since 2020 April 03 when i opened this review. I can't create a new repo: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/30242#comment-699630 New review for seqan3 will need to be approved. Thank you again. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1894895] New: Review Request: seqan3 - The modern C++ library for sequence analysis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894895 Bug ID: 1894895 Summary: Review Request: seqan3 - The modern C++ library for sequence analysis Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: trp...@rocketmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/seqan3/seqan3.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/seqan3/seqan3-3.0.2-5.fc33.src.rpm Description: see rhbz #1810293#c16 Fedora Account System Username: sagitter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1893732] Review Request: python-poetry-core - Poetry PEP 517 Build Backend
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1893732 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST --- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok --- Thanks for the review, Petr! > Not sure how well the 勞 will play with various tooling :) I suspect it will work similarly as my name. If not, we can always ditch it :) > Directories in site-packages/poetry are also owned by python3-poetry. > I expect that'll be sorted out in a joint update. Here is the poetry update: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/poetry/pull-request/5 The idea is that poetry-core owns: /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/poetry /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/poetry/__init__.py (+ cache) /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/poetry/core/ And poetry owns everything else: /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/poetry/__main__.py (+ cache) /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/poetry/__version__.py (+ cache) /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/poetry/*/ (except core) /usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/poetry/*.py (+ cache, except __init__.py) I think it works well. There seem to be no conflicts. But feel free to validate. (The Copr has both packages.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1884085] Review Request: prewikka-updatedb - Database update scripts for prewikka
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884085 --- Comment #7 from Thomas Andrejak --- Hello Thanks for your final review > Ah, I see. The wiki just says "GPL v2", but you've set the License field to > GPLv2+. Does the "or any later version" language appear anywhere? You are right, it was missing. I updated the wiki page > Please add a comment above the License field in the spec file pointing to the > wiki as justification. That comment can be removed when updating to a > release that contains license information. Done New Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~totol/prewikka-updatedb.spec New SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3776/54973776/prewikka-updatedb-5.2.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Thanks Regards -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1880356] Review Request: epson-inkjet-printer-escpr2 - Drivers for Epson inkjet printers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880356 --- Comment #2 from Susi Lehtola --- Yes, the upstream download links break down whenever they do a new release. Group removed, and package tagged as noarch. Spec URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/epson-inkjet-printer-escpr2.spec SRPM URL: https://jussilehtola.fedorapeople.org/epson-inkjet-printer-escpr2-1.1.24-1.1lsb3.2.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 1885495] Review Request: qatengine - Intel(R) QuickAssist Technology (QAT) OpenSSL Engine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885495 Dinesh changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(c...@redhat.com) ||needinfo?(c...@redhat.com) --- Comment #13 from Dinesh --- Hello @c...@redhat.com, We have addressed most of the review comments. I have ran against different targets mentioned by you and below are my observations. qatlib is failed to build in many of the target and succeeded only in 'centos-stream-x86_64' and 'fedora-rawhide-x86_64'. Hence, qatengine able to build successfully only in this two target. qatlib build(failing in many target) : https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/dineshbx/qatengine/build/1745585/ qatengine build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/dineshbx/qatengine/build/1745663/ SRPM: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dineshbx/qatengine/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01745663-qatengine/qatengine-0.6.1-1.fc34.src.rpm SPEC: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dineshbx/qatengine/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01745663-qatengine/qatengine.spec - We will take care of removing the ./autogen.sh script and include 'autoreconf -vif' in next release into github. - In %install, we have only 5 lines. Hope it should be reasonable. Please review the SPEC file and let us know if anything needs to be corrected. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1885809] Review Request: emacs-transient - Emacs transient key maps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885809
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Release stasts at 1 in Fedora:
Release:1%{?dist}
- Use install -p to keep timestamps:
install -D -p -m 644 docs/%{pkg}.info %{buildroot}/%{_infodir}/%{pkg}.info
install -D -p -m 644 -t %{buildroot}/%{_emacs_sitelispdir}/%{pkg} \
lisp/%{pkg}-autoloads.el lisp/%{pkg}.el lisp/%{pkg}.elc
- emacs-transient.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/info/transient.info.gz
Use -m 644 to install this.
- This is now taken care of by transfiletrigger:
Requires(post): /sbin/install-info
Requires(preun): /sbin/install-info
[…]
%post
/sbin/install-info %{_infodir}/%{pkg}.info %{_infodir}/dir || :
%preun
if [ $1 = 0 ] ; then
/sbin/install-info --delete %{_infodir}/%{pkg}.info %{_infodir}/dir || :
fi
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", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or
later". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/bob/packaging/review/emacs-transient/review-emacs-
transient/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if
package has .info files.
Note: Texinfo .info file(s) in emacs-transient
[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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= 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
[Bug 1881285] Review Request: python-nocasedict - A case-insensitive ordered dictionary for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881285
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- No need to repeat the BuildRequires en the subpackage:
BuildRequires: python3-devel
BuildRequires: python3dist(setuptools)
# Test deps
BuildRequires: python3dist(pytest)
- This should be picked by the automatic deps generator:
Requires: python3dist(six)
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", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
Version 2.1", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License,
Version 2.1 GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "*No
copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No
copyright* GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "GNU
Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal
address (Mass Ave)]". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-
nocasedict/review-python-nocasedict/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names
[Bug 1885498] Review Request: python-aioitertools - Itertools and builtins for AsyncIO and mixed iterables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885498
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "*No copyright* Expat
License". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-aioitertools/review-
python-aioitertools/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files
[Bug 1751216] Review Request: xlunch - Graphical app launcher for X with minimal dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751216
--- Comment #9 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- I'm not sure this can work on directories. Could you do:
%dir %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/*
- There's an issue with entries.dsv
xlunch.x86_64: E: non-readable /etc/xlunch/entries.dsv 0
Maybe chmod it 0644 after generation.
- What prevents you from doing that in install?
cp -rp svgicons/ %{_datadir}/%{name}/ 2>/dev/null || :
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 42 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/xlunch/review-xlunch/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.
[-]: 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 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: 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]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if
[Bug 1885421] Review Request: marcsabatella-campania-fonts - Font for Roman numeral analysis (music theory)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885421
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: 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", "SIL Open Font License 1.1". 9 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/marcsabatella-campania-fonts/review-
marcsabatella-campania-fonts/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: 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 is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global
[Bug 1888972] Review Request: golang-github-shurcool-githubv4 - A client library for accessing GitHub GraphQL API v4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888972 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED CC||zebo...@gmail.com Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-11-05 07:13:55 --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Seems I already built it two months ago, probably as a new dep for an update: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang%2Dgithub%2Dshurcool%2Dgithubv4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1888967] Review Request: golang-github-charmbracelet-glamour - Stylesheet-based markdown rendering for your CLI apps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1888967 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST CC||zebo...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Can you close all the bugs you have built in Rawhide? - License ok - Latest version packaged - Builds in mock - No rpmlint errors - Conforms to Packaging Guidelines Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1880215] Review Request: python-aiolifx - Python API for local communication with LIFX devices
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880215
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
Package approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Expat
License". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/python-aiolifx/review-
python-aiolifx/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
[Bug 1880903] Review Request: ghc-HaXml - Utilities for “true” manipulating XML documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880903
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- The copyright file states:
The HaXml tools Xtract, Validate, DtdToHaskell, XsdToHaskell, and
MkOneOf, are licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public Licence
(GPL), which can be found in the file called LICENCE-GPL.
So you should add GPL to the license field and add a comment explaining the
license breakdown.
Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GNU Lesser General Public License GNU General Public License",
"Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU
Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1". 54 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-HaXml/review-ghc-HaXml/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name
[Bug 1803303] Review Request: golang-github-alecaivazis-survey - A golang library for building interactive prompts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803303 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|bcot...@redhat.com |zebo...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Robert-André Mauchin --- Flag reset. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
