[Bug 1994063] Review Request: nginx-mod-naxsi - nginx web application firewall module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994063 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-9ba7f42344 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9ba7f42344 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1994063] Review Request: nginx-mod-naxsi - nginx web application firewall module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994063 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-363146d5cc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-363146d5cc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1994065] Review Request: nginx-mod-vts - Nginx virtual host traffic status module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994065 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-8471f47319 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-8471f47319 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1994065] Review Request: nginx-mod-vts - Nginx virtual host traffic status module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994065 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-e0c54f34c4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e0c54f34c4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1830712] Review Request: kronometer - A simple KDE stopwatch application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830712 --- Comment #19 from Kevin Kofler --- OK, I'll try to get this finally done this week. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1992877] Review Request: flintqs - William Hart's quadratic sieve
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992877
Ben Beasley changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Ben Beasley ---
Looks great! Package is approved.
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]: 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", "GNU General Public License, Version
2", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or
later". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/reviewer/1992877-flintqs/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 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
[Bug 1990685] Review Request: cpp-httplib - A C++11 single-file header-only cross platform HTTP/HTTPS library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990685
Troy Curtis changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Troy Curtis ---
Small text nit listed below, but otherwise looks great. Approved!
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Small text nit, there is still a description that is couple of characters too
long:
> If you are looking for a 'non-blocking' library, this is not the one that you
> want.
= 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", "MIT License", "Apache License 2.0",
"BSD (3 clause)". 54 files have unknown license.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Most of the errors stem from the rpmautospec usage, thus false positive.
One minor line length warning.
[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 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.
[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
[Bug 1990685] Review Request: cpp-httplib - A C++11 single-file header-only cross platform HTTP/HTTPS library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990685 Troy Curtis changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|t...@troycurtisjr.com |pemen...@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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1990685] Review Request: cpp-httplib - A C++11 single-file header-only cross platform HTTP/HTTPS library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990685 Troy Curtis changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1992728] Review Request: oscillatord - Daemon for disciplining an oscillator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992728 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-dfa5e8a0ca has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-dfa5e8a0ca \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-dfa5e8a0ca 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1992722] Review Request: ubloxcfg - u-blox 9 positioning receivers configuration library and tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992722 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-dfa5e8a0ca has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-dfa5e8a0ca \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-dfa5e8a0ca 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 always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1992232] Review Request: disciplining-minipod - Disciplining algorithm for Atomic Reference Time Card
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992232 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-dfa5e8a0ca has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-dfa5e8a0ca \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-dfa5e8a0ca 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 always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1993513] Review Request: coeurl - Simple async wrapper around CURL for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993513 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-efafa1fb69 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-efafa1fb69 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-efafa1fb69 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1993514] Review Request: vcpkg - C++ Library Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993514 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-7a6c9b36ff has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-7a6c9b36ff \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7a6c9b36ff 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 always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1988722] Review Request: gulrak-filesystem - Implementation of C++17 std::filesystem for C++11/14/17/20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988722 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-f9e8d9829f has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-f9e8d9829f \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f9e8d9829f 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1988517] Review Request: dr_libs - Single-file audio decoding libraries for C/C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988517 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-f6a58cd094 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-f6a58cd094 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f6a58cd094 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 always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1981138] Review Request: c4project - Useful CMake scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981138 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-a19a6affaf has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-a19a6affaf \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a19a6affaf 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1988151] Review Request: atomic-queue - C++ lockless queue
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988151 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-4b83d81872 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-4b83d81872 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4b83d81872 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 always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1988722] Review Request: gulrak-filesystem - Implementation of C++17 std::filesystem for C++11/14/17/20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988722 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-75ce88bc97 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-75ce88bc97 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1988151] Review Request: atomic-queue - C++ lockless queue
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988151 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-076a96c8a6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-076a96c8a6 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 always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1988517] Review Request: dr_libs - Single-file audio decoding libraries for C/C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988517 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f198b2492e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f198b2492e 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1992728] Review Request: oscillatord - Daemon for disciplining an oscillator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992728 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-52c3ccef77 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-52c3ccef77 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 always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1992722] Review Request: ubloxcfg - u-blox 9 positioning receivers configuration library and tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992722 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-52c3ccef77 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-52c3ccef77 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 always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1992232] Review Request: disciplining-minipod - Disciplining algorithm for Atomic Reference Time Card
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992232 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-52c3ccef77 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-52c3ccef77 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1981138] Review Request: c4project - Useful CMake scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981138 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-49c259225d has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-49c259225d \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-49c259225d 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 always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1988722] Review Request: gulrak-filesystem - Implementation of C++17 std::filesystem for C++11/14/17/20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988722 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-9399100bfc has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-9399100bfc` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9399100bfc 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 always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1988517] Review Request: dr_libs - Single-file audio decoding libraries for C/C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988517 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-35ee56c398 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-35ee56c398 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-35ee56c398 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1988151] Review Request: atomic-queue - C++ lockless queue
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988151 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-69a5c768aa has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-69a5c768aa \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-69a5c768aa 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 always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
needinfo canceled: [Bug 1858466] Review Request: perl-Path-Dispatcher - Flexible and extensible dispatch
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Package Review has canceled Package Review 's request for Ralf Corsepius 's needinfo: Bug 1858466: Review Request: perl-Path-Dispatcher - Flexible and extensible dispatch https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858466 --- Comment #2 from Package Review --- This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
needinfo canceled: [Bug 1858381] Review Request: perl-Web-Machine - Perl port of Webmachine
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Package Review has canceled Package Review 's request for Ralf Corsepius 's needinfo: Bug 1858381: Review Request: perl-Web-Machine - Perl port of Webmachine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858381 --- Comment #3 from Package Review --- This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1988722] Review Request: gulrak-filesystem - Implementation of C++17 std::filesystem for C++11/14/17/20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988722 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-75ce88bc97 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-75ce88bc97 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1988151] Review Request: atomic-queue - C++ lockless queue
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988151 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-076a96c8a6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-076a96c8a6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1992722] Review Request: ubloxcfg - u-blox 9 positioning receivers configuration library and tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992722 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-dfa5e8a0ca has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-dfa5e8a0ca -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1992728] Review Request: oscillatord - Daemon for disciplining an oscillator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992728 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-dfa5e8a0ca has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-dfa5e8a0ca -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1992232] Review Request: disciplining-minipod - Disciplining algorithm for Atomic Reference Time Card
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992232 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-dfa5e8a0ca has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-dfa5e8a0ca -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1992722] Review Request: ubloxcfg - u-blox 9 positioning receivers configuration library and tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992722 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-9e497c4534 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1992728] Review Request: oscillatord - Daemon for disciplining an oscillator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992728 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-9e497c4534 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1992232] Review Request: disciplining-minipod - Disciplining algorithm for Atomic Reference Time Card
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992232 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-9e497c4534 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1972601] Include openldap-servers package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1972601 --- Comment #3 from Carl George 鸞 --- Yes, the spec file needs to be renamed to openldap-servers.spec, and the Name field has to be changed to openldap-servers. The servers subpackage (`%package servers`, `%files servers`) will also need to be merged into the top level package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1830712] Review Request: kronometer - A simple KDE stopwatch application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830712 --- Comment #18 from Andrea Perotti --- (In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #17) > I am still interested in doing the review, if the submitter is still > interested too. I hope to find time this weekend. Yes please, would be really appreciated. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/andreamtp/kronometer/master/kronometer.spec # dnf copr enable andreamtp/kronometer SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/andreamtp/kronometer/fedora-34-x86_64/02526429-kronometer/kronometer-2.2.3-2.fc34.src.rpm In COPR can be found repos and builds for F33, F34, F35 and Rawhide Looking for your feedback! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1992914] Review Request: rubygem-middleware - Generalized implementation of the middleware abstraction for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992914 --- Comment #5 from Pavel Valena --- It's from the same `.gem` file as it was before retiring, AFAIK there was no release since "March 16, 2012". You're right, there was some activity in the fork 2015 / 2017. If the middleware gem needs those changes for rubygem-cucumber update (which is the reason we're un-retiring it) we can apply them. At this point that doesn't seem to be the case. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1993513] Review Request: coeurl - Simple async wrapper around CURL for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993513 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-efafa1fb69 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-efafa1fb69 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1993514] Review Request: vcpkg - C++ Library Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993514 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-7a6c9b36ff has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7a6c9b36ff -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1994678] Review Request: dirgra - Simple Directed Graph
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994678 --- Comment #1 from Didik Supriadi --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74018539 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1994678] New: Review Request: dirgra - Simple Directed Graph
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994678 Bug ID: 1994678 Summary: Review Request: dirgra - Simple Directed Graph Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: didiksupriad...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/dirgra.spec SRPM URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/dirgra-0.4-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Simple Directed Graph Implementation. Fedora Account System Username: didiksupriadi41 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1988722] Review Request: gulrak-filesystem - Implementation of C++17 std::filesystem for C++11/14/17/20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988722 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-9399100bfc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9399100bfc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1988722] Review Request: gulrak-filesystem - Implementation of C++17 std::filesystem for C++11/14/17/20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988722 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-f9e8d9829f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f9e8d9829f -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1988517] Review Request: dr_libs - Single-file audio decoding libraries for C/C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988517 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f198b2492e has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f198b2492e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1994660] New: Review Request: joda-convert - Java library to enable conversion to and from standard string formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994660 Bug ID: 1994660 Summary: Review Request: joda-convert - Java library to enable conversion to and from standard string formats Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: didiksupriad...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/joda-convert.spec SRPM URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/joda-convert-2.2.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Joda-Convert is a small, highly-focussed library, tackling a problem that the JDK should solve - providing round-trip conversion between Objects and Strings. It is not intended to tackle the wider problem of Object to Object transformation. Fedora Account System Username: didiksupriadi41 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1992728] Review Request: oscillatord - Daemon for disciplining an oscillator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992728 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-52c3ccef77 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-52c3ccef77 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1992722] Review Request: ubloxcfg - u-blox 9 positioning receivers configuration library and tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992722 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-52c3ccef77 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-52c3ccef77 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1992232] Review Request: disciplining-minipod - Disciplining algorithm for Atomic Reference Time Card
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992232 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2021-52c3ccef77 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-52c3ccef77 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1994660] Review Request: joda-convert - Java library to enable conversion to and from standard string formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994660 --- Comment #1 from Didik Supriadi --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74017013 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1993514] Review Request: vcpkg - C++ Library Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993514 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vcpkg -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1993513] Review Request: coeurl - Simple async wrapper around CURL for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993513 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/coeurl -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1988517] Review Request: dr_libs - Single-file audio decoding libraries for C/C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988517 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-35ee56c398 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-35ee56c398 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1988517] Review Request: dr_libs - Single-file audio decoding libraries for C/C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988517 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-f6a58cd094 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f6a58cd094 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1994626] New: Review Request: backport9 - Backports and utilities to support Java 9 and higher on Java 8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994626 Bug ID: 1994626 Summary: Review Request: backport9 - Backports and utilities to support Java 9 and higher on Java 8 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: didiksupriad...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/backport9.spec SRPM URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/backport9-1.12-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: A collection of backports and utilities to support libraries and apps that want to use Java 9 features but still function on Java 8. Fedora Account System Username: didiksupriadi41 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1994626] Review Request: backport9 - Backports and utilities to support Java 9 and higher on Java 8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994626 --- Comment #1 from Didik Supriadi --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74012580 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1993513] Review Request: coeurl - Simple async wrapper around CURL for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993513 Vasiliy Glazov changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vasc...@gmail.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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1982618] Review Request: php-christophwurst-id3parser - A pure ID3 parser based upon getID3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982618 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-christophwurst-id3parser -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1993514] Review Request: vcpkg - C++ Library Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993514 Vasiliy Glazov changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|vasc...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1981138] Review Request: c4project - Useful CMake scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981138 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-49c259225d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-49c259225d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1993514] Review Request: vcpkg - C++ Library Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993514
Vasiliy Glazov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from Vasiliy Glazov ---
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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* Boost
Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Boost Software
License 1.0". 362 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/vascom/1993514-vcpkg/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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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 must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]:
[Bug 1988722] Review Request: gulrak-filesystem - Implementation of C++17 std::filesystem for C++11/14/17/20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988722 --- Comment #4 from Ben Beasley --- Thanks for the review! > - Note the description-line-too-long complaint from rpmlint, due to a macro on > line 53 of the spec file. I will fix this on import. > - %cmake already invokes %set_build_flags, so there is no need for you to > invoke it manually (see /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.cmake). It doesn't > hurt, though. I will fix this, too. It’s left over from where I was adding some build flags for testing during initial packaging work. I removed the extra flags, but missed the %set_build_flags. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1994095] Review Request: libavtp - An AVTP protocol implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994095 --- Comment #5 from Peter Robinson --- > I considered legal review, because it mentions some h264 data, it seems the > code contains just bunch of serialization functions, not anything patent > related I think. My understanding and digging is it's purely a transport protocol so it doesn't use actual H264 in the library and relies on gstreamer (currently in -bad for that). Also has support for alsa but that's unrelated to h264. It's basically an interface for A/V Broadcast over TSN (Time Sensitive Networking). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1993513] Review Request: coeurl - Simple async wrapper around CURL for C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993513
Vasiliy Glazov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from Vasiliy Glazov ---
Approved.
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
in what you paste.
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]: 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", "MIT License", "BSD (2 clause)". 27
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/vascom/1993513-coeurl/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.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[Bug 1988722] Review Request: gulrak-filesystem - Implementation of C++17 std::filesystem for C++11/14/17/20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988722 --- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gulrak-filesystem -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1994095] Review Request: libavtp - An AVTP protocol implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994095 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libavtp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1994611] Review Request: invokebinder - A Java DSL for binding method handles forward, rather than backward
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994611 --- Comment #1 from Didik Supriadi --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74009714 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1994611] New: Review Request: invokebinder - A Java DSL for binding method handles forward, rather than backward
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994611 Bug ID: 1994611 Summary: Review Request: invokebinder - A Java DSL for binding method handles forward, rather than backward Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: didiksupriad...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/invokebinder.spec SRPM URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/invokebinder-1.12-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: This library hopes to provide a more friendly DSL for binding method handles. Unlike the normal MethodHandle API, handles are bound forward from a source MethodType and eventually adapted to a final target MethodHandle. Along the way the transformations are pushed onto a stack and eventually applied in reverse order, as the standard API demands. Fedora Account System Username: didiksupriadi41 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1981138] Review Request: c4project - Useful CMake scripts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981138 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-a19a6affaf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a19a6affaf -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1994095] Review Request: libavtp - An AVTP protocol implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994095 Petr Menšík changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED|POST --- Comment #4 from Petr Menšík --- I did not expect so quick response, just to notify you of status change. I admit just small SHOULD issues remains, though multiple of them. Okay, I guess review+ can be given even without fixing them first, especially because your are no novice of packaging. I considered legal review, because it mentions some h264 data, it seems the code contains just bunch of serialization functions, not anything patent related I think. Thanks for the package, additional fixes would be nice but not mandatory. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1988151] Review Request: atomic-queue - C++ lockless queue
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988151 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-69a5c768aa has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-69a5c768aa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1988151] Review Request: atomic-queue - C++ lockless queue
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988151 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-4b83d81872 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4b83d81872 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1992931] Review Request: rubygem-image_size - Measure image size using pure Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992931
--- Comment #3 from Mamoru TASAKA ---
Thank you for review, I will reply and update the spec in tomorrow (perhaps).
Just some notes:
* %{nil} convention
This is useful when I want to add additional lines after "spec \" line.
When not using %{nil}, I have to write "spec" (ends here), and when I want to
add additional
line, I have to change the line to "spec \", while using %nil as "sentinel",
this can
make diff a bit smaller.
* Doc subpackage could be noarch.
Actually I wonder why gem2rpm writes "noarch" to subpackage... When the main
package is
marked as "BuildArch: noarch", all subpackages becomes noarch automatically.
(Conversely: we cannot make subpackage arch-dependent when writing main
package as
"BuildArch: noarch")
* You do not have to move the gemspec file in %prep.
This is to clean up build dir after rebuild.
When you do "$ rpmbuild --rebuild *.src.rpm" or "$ fedpkg --release f34 local
-- --clean",
you can see:
---
Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files
/home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/INSTROOT/rubygem-image_size-2.1.1-1.fc34-foo-tasaka1
Wrote:
/home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/fedora-specific/RUBYGEMS/rubygem-image_size/Review/rubygem-image_size-2.1.1-1.fc34.src.rpm
Wrote:
/home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/fedora-specific/RUBYGEMS/rubygem-image_size/Review/noarch/rubygem-image_size-2.1.1-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
Wrote:
/home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/fedora-specific/RUBYGEMS/rubygem-image_size/Review/noarch/rubygem-image_size-doc-2.1.1-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
Executing(%clean): /bin/sh -e /home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/INSTROOT/rpm-tmp.9WXLyW
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/fedora-specific/RUBYGEMS/rubygem-image_size/Review
+ cd image_size-2.1.1
+ /usr/bin/rm -rf
/home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/INSTROOT/rubygem-image_size-2.1.1-1.fc34-foo-tasaka1
+ RPM_EC=0
++ jobs -p
+ exit 0
Executing(--clean): /bin/sh -e /home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/INSTROOT/rpm-tmp.ENZqEC
+ umask 022
+ cd /home/tasaka1/rpmbuild/fedora-specific/RUBYGEMS/rubygem-image_size/Review
+ rm -rf image_size-2.1.1 <
+ RPM_EC=0
++ jobs -p
+ exit 0
---
Without moving every unpackaged files under the directory specfied by "%setup
-n" option,
files are not cleaned up after rpmbuild.
Actually I oppose to use directories outside the one specified by "%setup
-n".
* I will ask the upstream to modify FSF address later, however for now I will
leave this
as it is.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1994095] Review Request: libavtp - An AVTP protocol implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994095
Peter Robinson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(pbrobinson@gmail. |
|com)|
--- Comment #3 from Peter Robinson ---
> Issues
> ===
>
> - README.md is not included as %doc, CONTRIBUTING.md and HACKING.md should
> be part of devel subpackage.
> - Source0 url does not work, tag prefix "v" is missing
> Suggested url:
> Source0:
> %{url}/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
> - Unit tests should be run during build when present, example is at the end
> of HACKING.md
> - BSD-3 license tag should be just BSD;
> visit the list:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses
I think all these minor issues can easily be fixed on import, I have them done
locally. What's the bug NEEDINFO for?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1994095] Review Request: libavtp - An AVTP protocol implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994095
Petr Menšík changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pemen...@redhat.com
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags||fedora-review?
||needinfo?(pbrobinson@gmail.
||com)
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pemen...@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Petr Menšík ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues
===
- README.md is not included as %doc, CONTRIBUTING.md and HACKING.md should be
part of devel subpackage.
- Source0 url does not work, tag prefix "v" is missing
Suggested url:
Source0:%{url}/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- Unit tests should be run during build when present, example is at the end of
HACKING.md
- BSD-3 license tag should be just BSD;
visit the list:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses
= 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)". 5 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/reviewer/fedora/rawhide/1994095-libavtp/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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go
[Bug 1988151] Review Request: atomic-queue - C++ lockless queue
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988151 --- Comment #7 from Ben Beasley --- I’ll go ahead and create the tracker bugs for the missing architectures. It might still be possible to resolve them with some care, and perhaps consultation with upstream. I think I now basically understand the requirements for a minimal “empty” spin_loop_pause(). The fallback for ARMs that don’t support the “yield” instruction is a good example. It’s a “nop” instruction plus a memory clobber, to create a “compiler barrier” that keeps the compiler from eliding, hoisting, or otherwise subverting the pause function. This is exactly what the example you gave for PowerPC is doing. “or 1 1 1” is an idiomatic nop for PowerPC, or’ing a register with itself to waste time with no effect. I’m not so sure about the s390x example from Linux. As far as I can understand from the limited documentation I’ve found, it’s a conditional branch where the condition is zero so the branch is not taken. However, it seems the first argument somehow causes the BCR instruction to have a synchronization function as well (https://github.com/golang/go/issues/42479), although I haven’t found good documentation on the exact effects. I assume this is intentional, and I wonder why it is needed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1992914] Review Request: rubygem-middleware - Generalized implementation of the middleware abstraction for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992914 --- Comment #4 from Mamoru TASAKA --- Ah, well, do you know how is this package from : https://github.com/Ibsciss/ruby-middleware ? Looking at the git commit log, I guess that Ibsciss/ruby-middleware is forked from mitchellh/middleware ( https://github.com/mitchellh/middleware/commit/23d4741d15c5999d81493ec43448f72032119bee seems the same as https://github.com/Ibsciss/ruby-middleware/commit/23d4741d15c5999d81493ec43448f72032119bee ) and Ibsciss/ruby-middleware seems "newer". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1988517] Review Request: dr_libs - Single-file audio decoding libraries for C/C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988517 --- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dr_libs -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1994501] Review Request: libstrophe - An XMPP library for C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994501 Matthieu Saulnier changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Matthieu Saulnier --- I fixed the Requires tag in the doc subpackage, and I made new release. Spec URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/libstrophe.spec SRPM URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/libstrophe-0.10.1-2.fc33.src.rpm Scratch build: rawhide (future f36): https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74007169 f34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74007178 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1988517] Review Request: dr_libs - Single-file audio decoding libraries for C/C++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988517 --- Comment #6 from Ben Beasley --- Thanks for the review! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1994501] New: Review Request: libstrophe - An XMPP library for C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994501 Bug ID: 1994501 Summary: Review Request: libstrophe - An XMPP library for C Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: cas...@casperlefantom.net QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/libstrophe.spec SRPM URL: https://fantom.fedorapeople.org/libstrophe-0.10.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: libstrophe is a minimal XMPP library written in C. It has almost no external dependencies, only an XML parsing library (expat or libxml are both supported). It is designed for both POSIX and Windows systems. Fedora Account System Username: fantom Scratch build: rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74005273 f35: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74005277 f34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74005281 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1994481] New: Review Request: golang-github-openshift-online-ocm-sdk - SDK for the Red Hat OpenShift Cluster Manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994481 Bug ID: 1994481 Summary: Review Request: golang-github-openshift-online-ocm-sdk - SDK for the Red Hat OpenShift Cluster Manager Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sraym...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gundersanne/golang-github-openshift-online-ocm-sdk/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02525470-golang-github-openshift-online-ocm-sdk/golang-github-openshift-online-ocm-sdk.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/gundersanne/golang-github-openshift-online-ocm-sdk/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02525470-golang-github-openshift-online-ocm-sdk/golang-github-openshift-online-ocm-sdk-0.1.200-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: This SDK simplifies the use of the OCM API on https://api.openshift.com/, and provides several go modules which simplify the development of services for the platform. Fedora Account System Username: gundersanne -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1990685] Review Request: cpp-httplib - A C++11 single-file header-only cross platform HTTP/HTTPS library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1990685 Petr Menšík changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(pemensik@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #4 from Petr Menšík --- Thanks for feedback, updated spec. Spec URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/cpp-httplib.spec SRPM URL: https://pemensik.fedorapeople.org/cpp-httplib-0.9.2-922.fc36.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1931183] Review Request: python-spikeextractors - Python module for extracting recorded and spike sorted extracellular data from different file types and formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1931183 Bug 1931183 depends on bug 1948573, which changed state. Bug 1948573 Summary: python-pynwb: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1948573 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1931183] Review Request: python-spikeextractors - Python module for extracting recorded and spike sorted extracellular data from different file types and formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1931183 --- Comment #12 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) --- pynwb + hdmf have both been build for rawhide/f35, so you should be able to proceed with this package now. Cheers, -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1994272] Review Request: jnr-enxio - Native I/O access for java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994272 --- Comment #1 from Didik Supriadi --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73994112 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1994272] New: Review Request: jnr-enxio - Native I/O access for java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994272 Bug ID: 1994272 Summary: Review Request: jnr-enxio - Native I/O access for java Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: didiksupriad...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/jnr-enxio.spec SRPM URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/jnr-enxio-0.32.6-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Native I/O access for java. Fedora Account System Username: didiksupriadi41 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
