[Bug 2134021] Review Request: mingw-pyproject-rpm-macros - RPM macros for PEP 517 MinGW Python packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134021 --- Comment #5 from Sandro Mani --- > I agree that the dependency on pyproject-rpm-macros should be explicit and > better yet versioned (somehow). Ok - versioned to make sure that manual intervention is required to make sure that a new version of pyproject-rpm-macros works correctly I presume? > The version of this package seems quite arbitrary. Should it follow the > pyproject-rpm-macros version instead? Yes can make sense > %pyproject_buildrequires is missing entirely? Yes, I haven't yet looked into this one TBH. Priority for now is to have a possibility to build packages which don't have setup.py. > There are the following runtime requires hardcoded: > Requires: mingwXX-python3-pip > Requires: mingwXX-python3-setuptools > Requires: mingwXX-python3-wheel > That is against the spirit of PEP 517 which this package mentions in the > summary and description. > If you just need a way to build a wheel with setuptools and install it, > aren't %py3_build_wheel and %py3_install_wheel better suited for the task? This is probably me lacking a good understanding of python building post setuptools. Ultimately I was just looking to mirror the packaging of native packages, but I'm open to any solution which allows me to build the packages. -- > LICENSE. The original macros are: > Copyright 2019 pyproject-rpm-macros contributors > This one is: > > Copyright (c) 2015 Sandro Mani > > The year is probably bogus and changing the name seems a bit weird. Sloppiness on my part, I copied the license from rpm-mpi-hooks without realizing that it contained also the copyright line. Obviously the copyright should be the one of the original macros. -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134021 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2121490] Review Request: rust-sodiumoxide - Fast cryptographic library for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121490 --- Comment #2 from Stuart D Gathman --- Added --skip to %cargo_test %cargo_test -- -- --skip newtype_macros::new_type test result: ok. 21 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 3 filtered out; finished in 2.47s error: test failed, to rerun pass '--lib' Caused by: process didn't exit successfully: `/builddir/build/BUILD/sodiumoxide-0.2.7/target/release/deps/sodiumoxide-730831ba5980a0f8 --skip 'newtype_macros::new_type'` (signal: 4, SIGILL: illegal instruction) Seems like a bug in %cargo_test macro? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121490 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 1983745] Review Request: rust-ed25519-dalek - Fast and efficient ed25519 EdDSA key generations, signing, and verification
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1983745 --- Comment #14 from Stuart D Gathman --- New Spec URL: https://gathman.org/linux/SPECS/rust-ed25519-dalek.spec New SRPM URL: https://gathman.org/linux/f37/src/rust-ed25519-dalek-1.0.1-4.fc37.src.rpm Problem 1: conflicting requests - nothing provides (crate(merlin) >= 2.0.0 with crate(merlin) < 3.0.0~) needed by rust-ed25519-dalek+merlin-devel-1.0.1-4.fc37.noarch Problem 2: conflicting requests - nothing provides (crate(sha2/asm) >= 0.9.0 with crate(sha2/asm) < 0.10.0~) needed by rust-ed25519-dalek+asm-devel-1.0.1-4.fc37.noarch Problem 3: package rust-ed25519-dalek+batch-devel-1.0.1-4.fc37.noarch requires crate(ed25519-dalek/merlin) = 1.0.1, but none of the providers can be installed - conflicting requests - nothing provides (crate(merlin) >= 2.0.0 with crate(merlin) < 3.0.0~) needed by rust-ed25519-dalek+merlin-devel-1.0.1-1.fc37.noarch - nothing provides (crate(merlin) >= 2.0.0 with crate(merlin) < 3.0.0~) needed by rust-ed25519-dalek+merlin-devel-1.0.1-4.fc37.noarch Problem 4: package rust-ed25519-dalek+batch_deterministic-devel-1.0.1-4.fc37.noarch requires crate(ed25519-dalek/merlin) = 1.0.1, but none of the providers can be installed - conflicting requests - nothing provides (crate(merlin) >= 2.0.0 with crate(merlin) < 3.0.0~) needed by rust-ed25519-dalek+merlin-devel-1.0.1-1.fc37.noarch - nothing provides (crate(merlin) >= 2.0.0 with crate(merlin) < 3.0.0~) needed by rust-ed25519-dalek+merlin-devel-1.0.1-4.fc37.noarch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1983745 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 1981119] Review Request: rust-ed25519 - Edwards Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA) over Curve25519
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981119 --- Comment #14 from Stuart D Gathman --- New Spec URL: https://gathman.org/linux/SPECS/rust-ed25519.spec New SRPM URL: https://gathman.org/linux/f37/src/rust-ed25519-1.5.2-2.fc37.src.rpm Post install check has 3 errors: Problem 1: conflicting requests - nothing provides (crate(pkcs8/default) >= 0.9.0 with crate(pkcs8/default) < 0.10.0~) needed by rust-ed25519+pkcs8-devel-1.5.2-2.fc37.noarch Problem 2: conflicting requests - nothing provides (crate(pkcs8/alloc) >= 0.9.0 with crate(pkcs8/alloc) < 0.10.0~) needed by rust-ed25519+alloc-devel-1.5.2-2.fc37.noarch Problem 3: conflicting requests - nothing provides (crate(pkcs8/pem) >= 0.9.0 with crate(pkcs8/pem) < 0.10.0~) needed by rust-ed25519+pem-devel-1.5.2-2.fc37.noarch -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1981119 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2121490] Review Request: rust-sodiumoxide - Fast cryptographic library for Rust
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121490 --- Comment #1 from Stuart D Gathman --- Spec URL: https://gathman.org/linux/SPECS/rust-sodiumoxide.spec SRPM URL: https://gathman.org/linux/f37/src/rust-sodiumoxide-0.2.7-2.fc37.src.rpm One of the tests fails - a missing compile dependency: failures: src/newtype_macros.rs - newtype_macros::new_type (line 175) src/newtype_macros.rs - newtype_macros::new_type (line 184) src/newtype_macros.rs - newtype_macros::new_type (line 194) The newtype macros is not in scope. I don't know enough rust to debug. Since all the other tests pass, I defaulted to skip tests. -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121490 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2117954] Review Request: rust-signature - Traits for cryptographic signature algorithms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117954 --- Comment #6 from Stuart D Gathman --- I rebuilt with --postinstall after build new rust-signature_derive-1.0.0-pre.7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117954 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2118090] Review Request: rust-signature_derive - Custom derive support for the 'signature' crate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2118090 --- Comment #3 from Stuart D Gathman --- Spec URL: https://gathman.org/linux/SPECS/rust-signature_derive.spec SRPM URL: https://gathman.org/linux/f37/src/rust-signature_derive-1.0.0~pre.7-1.fc37.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2118090 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2134021] Review Request: mingw-pyproject-rpm-macros - RPM macros for PEP 517 MinGW Python packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134021 --- Comment #4 from Miro Hrončok --- Random thoughts: -- I agree that the dependency on pyproject-rpm-macros should be explicit and better yet versioned (somehow). -- The version of this package seems quite arbitrary. Should it follow the pyproject-rpm-macros version instead? -- %pyproject_buildrequires is missing entirely? There are the following runtime requires hardcoded: Requires: mingwXX-python3-pip Requires: mingwXX-python3-setuptools Requires: mingwXX-python3-wheel That is against the spirit of PEP 517 which this package mentions in the summary and description. If you just need a way to build a wheel with setuptools and install it, aren't %py3_build_wheel and %py3_install_wheel better suited for the task? -- LICENSE. The original macros are: Copyright 2019 pyproject-rpm-macros contributors This one is: Copyright (c) 2015 Sandro Mani The year is probably bogus and changing the name seems a bit weird. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134021 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2130607] Review Request: Atomes - An atomistic tool box
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130607 --- Comment #12 from Alexander Ploumistos --- P.S.: I corrected your link to the source rpm (the .fc36 was missing) because fedora-review was complaining and I was too lazy to fetch the file and run it locally :P -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130607 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2130607] Review Request: Atomes - An atomistic tool box
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130607
--- Comment #11 from Alexander Ploumistos ---
Here goes:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-
file-validate if there is such a file.
* Add the following %check section to your spec file between the %install and
%files sections:
%check
desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop
If in the future you may want to run any tests, this is the place to add them.
Also, since atomes is a graphical desktop application, we should add an
AppStream metadata XML file, so that it gets picked up by software-center-type
graphical installers, take a look at
https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
/home/user/reviews/2130607-atomes/diff.txt
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
To simplify things, tag a 1.1.6 release in the upstream repository (which I
suppose is https://github.com/Slookeur/Atomes) and use that as your source
tarball, i.e.:
Source0:
https://github.com/Slookeur/Atomes/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz
Upstream you are using the name Atomes (with a capital "A"), so if you happen
to add it to the tarball name, you can define a global variable in the
beginning of the spec file, e.g. upname, to refer to that and not worry about
uppercase and lowercase letters:
%global upname Atomes
You could then change the source URL to:
Source0:
https://github.com/Slookeur/%{upname}/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz
Remember that when you are wearing your upstream developer hat, you are free to
change whatever version number you feel like and you know nothing about
Fedora's release number. With your packager hat on, you can only increment the
release number, you can't change whatever number your developer self has used
for the version. Try to manage the ensuing schizophrenia…
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Affero General Public License
v3.0", "FSF All Permissive License", "[generated file]", "*No
copyright* GNU Affero General Public License", "FSF Unlimited License
(with License Retention) GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
[generated file]", "*No copyright* GNU Affero General Public License
v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated
file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "FSF Unlimited
License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "*No
copyright* [generated file]", "GNU Affero General Public License v3.0
or later". 702 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in
/home/user/reviews/2130607-atomes/licensecheck.txt
As far as I can tell, the files with licenses other than Affero are only used
during compilation and they are not part of the binary package, so everything
is good there. However, the license mentioned in "COPYING" is "GNU Affero
General Public License v3.0" (AGPLv3), whereas in src/affero.h you have "GNU
Affero General Public License v3.0 or later" (AGPLv3+). If it's an oversight,
change the one that is wrong, otherwise the effective license becomes the more
restrictive one.
[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.
*** remember to tag the 1.1.6 release (or whatever subsequent number you
decide)
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
*** You can replace any instance of "atomes" with "%{name}" for the added fun
[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
[Bug 2051643] Review Request: lite-xl - A lightweight, simple, fast, feature-filled, and extremely extensible text editor written in C, and Lua, adapted from lite.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051643 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Kadlčík --- Thank you for the changes, > Issues: > === > - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided > in the spec URL. > Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in > /home/jkadlcik/2051643-lite-xl/diff.txt > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ Unfortunately, the fedora-review tool still complains about the MD5sum check error. The following things are minor and I won't block the review because of them but please consider ... > So I added a patch file. > I will contact upstream. Once you file an upstream issue or a PR, can you please link it in the spec file? So we can track when the downstream patch is no longer necessary. > Summary: A lightweight text editor written in Lua, adapted from lite. Summary shouldn't end with a period, rpmlint complains about it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051643 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2124697] Review Request: libblkio - Block device I/O library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124697 Stefan Hajnoczi changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(rjo...@redhat.com ||) --- Comment #20 from Stefan Hajnoczi --- (In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #19) > It was really me pointing out that possibility, what you do is for upstream > to decide :-) > > I think my question is are we going to go ahead with this package right now > (with bundling), OR shall we wait for the dependencies to be built, OR shall > we wait until you split upstream into blkio + libblkio (which would mean > in turn that we're really doing two packages here and will need an extra > review)? > Let me know how you want to proceed on this one. The blkio and virtio-driver crates are being developed in libblkio.git for the time being. Changing that is not a priority, so we can work with the current layout. Bundling blkio and virtio-driver is fine by me. At some point another Rust program may be packaged by Fedora that also uses blkio or virtio-driver. At that point unbundling would be natural. Right now the only program I'm aware of that uses blkio and virtio-driver is qsd-rs (https://gitlab.com/hreitz/qsd-rs), an experimental codebase that isn't close to be packaged. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124697 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2134224] Review Request: python-sphinx-typlog-theme - A Sphinx theme sponsored by Typlog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134224 --- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim --- Thanks! Thanks! python-mistune on v2 [?] took 3s ⬢ [fedora-toolbox:37] ❯ fedpkg request-branch --repo python-sphinx-typlog-theme --all-releases https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48170 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48171 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/48172 python-mistune on v2 [?] took 6s ⬢ [fedora-toolbox:37] ❯ fedpkg request-branch --repo python-sphinx-typlog-theme epel9 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134224 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2134224] Review Request: python-sphinx-typlog-theme - A Sphinx theme sponsored by Typlog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134224 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-sphinx-typlog-theme -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134224 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2134224] Review Request: python-sphinx-typlog-theme - A Sphinx theme sponsored by Typlog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134224 Neal Gompa changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST Flags||fedora-review+ Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ngomp...@gmail.com CC||ngomp...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa --- Review notes: * Package follows Python packaging policy * Package uses new SPDX-style license identifiers * Package licensing is correct and license files are installed * Package builds and installs * No serious issues from rpmlint PACKAGE APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134224 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2134224] Review Request: python-sphinx-typlog-theme - A Sphinx theme sponsored by Typlog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134224 Michel Alexandre Salim changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1782288 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1782288 [Bug 1782288] python-mistune-3.0.0a3 is available -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134224 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2134224] New: Review Request: python-sphinx-typlog-theme - A Sphinx theme sponsored by Typlog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134224 Bug ID: 2134224 Summary: Review Request: python-sphinx-typlog-theme - A Sphinx theme sponsored by Typlog Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mic...@michel-slm.name QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx-typlog-theme.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/python-sphinx-typlog-theme-0.8.0-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: A sphinx theme sponsored by Typlog, created by Hsiaoming Yang. Fedora Account System Username: salimma -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134224 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2134021] Review Request: mingw-pyproject-rpm-macros - RPM macros for PEP 517 MinGW Python packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134021
--- Comment #3 from Sandro Mani ---
The %mingw_python3 macros come from macros.mingw{32,64}-python3 as installed by
mingw{32,64}-python3. mingw{32,64}-python3 pulls in python3-devel, which in
turn pulls in the pyproject-rpm-macros. But to make it more explicit, I could
also add an explicit Requires: pyproject-rpm-macros to the
mingw{32,64}-pyproject-rpm-macros packages.
--
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134021
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2132022] Review Request: python-poetry-plugin-export - Poetry plugin to export the dependencies to various formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2132022 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|POST|CLOSED Fixed In Version||python-poetry-plugin-export ||-1.1.1-2.fc38 Last Closed||2022-10-12 18:37:54 -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2132022 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2133872] Review Request: python-mistune08 - Markdown parser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872 --- Comment #15 from Miro Hrončok --- I also don't understand why the package name is python-mistune08 and not python-mistune0.8. See the examples at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#multiple But I guess it's too late for that now :( -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2133872] Review Request: python-mistune08 - Markdown parser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-e5598dddfd has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-e5598dddfd \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e5598dddfd 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2133872] Review Request: python-mistune08 - Markdown parser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-151e9e3680 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-151e9e3680 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-151e9e3680 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2134019] Review Request: mingw-python-pip - MinGW Windows Python pip library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134019
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in
the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in
/home/jamesjer/2134019-mingw-python-pip/diff.txt
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/
It looks like the tarball in the SRPM is from github, but Source0 claims it
is from pypi.
- Both binary packages have a Requires on /usr/bin/python3.10. Is that
correct, or should they have a Requires on /usr/bin/mingw32-python3 and
/usr/bin/mingw64-python3, respectively?
The non-executable-script warnings from rpmlint may be related, as those
shebangs are rewritten to point to /usr/bin/python, I believe.
- The License tag is not correct, as it does not account for the vendored
libraries included in the binary packages. The python-pip package has a big
comment about that, along with a more complex License tag. It has not been
converted to SPDX.
- In conjunction with that issue, many of the vendored libraries have their
own license files, none of which are installed with %license. I see that
the python-pip package does this as well. I'm not sure that is correct.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: 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* MIT
License", "*No copyright* MIT License BSD 2-Clause License Apache
License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "Apache License
2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Mozilla
Public License 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1",
"*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "GNU
Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "CNRI Python Open Source
GPL Compatible License Agreement", "BSD 3-Clause License", "*No
copyright* [generated file]", "BSD 2-Clause License", "ISC License",
"[generated file]". 861 files have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners:
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/lib,
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-packages,
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/bin, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/bin,
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10/site-
packages, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib,
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/lib/python3.10
[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=...
[Bug 2134021] Review Request: mingw-pyproject-rpm-macros - RPM macros for PEP 517 MinGW Python packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134021 --- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok --- > Have you communicated with the pyproject-rpm-macros maintainers about this? Actually yes. And I was reluctant to maintain this within pyproject-rpm-macros due to my (close to) zero understanding of MinGW packaging. Hence we agreed to package it separately, but I haven't yet seen how it is done. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134021 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2134019] Review Request: mingw-python-pip - MinGW Windows Python pip library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134019 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||loganje...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Jerry James --- I will take this 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134019 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2133872] Review Request: python-mistune08 - Markdown parser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed||2022-10-12 17:02:21 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-7da468cb03 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2134021] Review Request: mingw-pyproject-rpm-macros - RPM macros for PEP 517 MinGW Python packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134021
Maxwell G changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gotmax@e.email,
||mhron...@redhat.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Maxwell G ---
Some initial drive by comments:
Have you communicated with the pyproject-rpm-macros maintainers about this?
Where are the %mingw_python3* macros defined? Are these macros supposed to
depend on pyproject-rpm-macros? This seems to rely on some files and macros
from there (e.g. %{_rpmconfigdir}/redhat/pyproject_save_files.py in
%pyproject_save_files or %{_pyproject_ghost_distinfo}). pyproject-rpm-macros
also has solid unit and integration tests which seem to be removed here.
--
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134021
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2133872] Review Request: python-mistune08 - Markdown parser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-687f046b74 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-687f046b74 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-687f046b74 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2130607] Review Request: Atomes - An atomistic tool box
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130607
--- Comment #10 from Sébastien Le Roux ---
Hello,
thanks for doing the job Alexander, and please no need to rush ;-)
Also I can help along the process, that is an opportunity to improve myself
to help others later on, so please let me know what I can do to assist you.
Latest build on Copr available here:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/slook/Atomes/
The build was performed using:
https://github.com/Slookeur/Atomes-rpm-build/raw/main/Fedora/atomes.spec
Latest build review from Copr:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/slook/Atomes/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04910938-atomes/fedora-review/review.txt
Latest rpmlint output from the Copr builts:
source rpm:
== rpmlint
session starts
=
rpmlint: 2.2.0
...
atomes.src: E: unknown-key 268fd208
atomes.spec:63: W: macro-in-comment %{gpgverify}
atomes.spec:63: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE2}
atomes.spec:63: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE1}
atomes.spec:63: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE0}
=== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1
errors, 4 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s
==
x86_64 rpm:
== rpmlint
session starts
=
rpmlint: 2.2.0
...
atomes.x86_64: E: unknown-key 268fd208
=== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1
errors, 0 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s
==
Seems pretty clean, although I have no idea what this "unknown-key " thing is
... yet ;-)
--
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130607
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2133872] Review Request: python-mistune08 - Markdown parser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872 --- Comment #10 from Miro Hrončok --- python-m2r requires python3dist(mistune) without a version range. Are we 100% sure we can update mistune without breaking this package? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2133872] Review Request: python-mistune08 - Markdown parser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mhron...@redhat.com
--- Comment #9 from Miro Hrončok ---
This cannot be just packaged for stable releases without a figured update path.
If you plan to update python-mistune in stable releases, this needs to Obsolete
the older version so it is replaced without --alowerasing.
If you don't plan to update python-mistune in stable releases, this should have
not been imported there.
This probably needs to be removed or updated:
%{?python_provide:%python_provide python3-%{upname}}
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-mistune08/pull-request/1
--
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2124546] Review Request: duo_unix - Duo two-factor authentication for UNIX systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124546 --- Comment #23 from Davide Cavalca --- Thanks for the report Mark, I've moved that to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134160 for ease of tracking. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124546 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2124697] Review Request: libblkio - Block device I/O library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124697 --- Comment #19 from Richard W.M. Jones --- It was really me pointing out that possibility, what you do is for upstream to decide :-) I think my question is are we going to go ahead with this package right now (with bundling), OR shall we wait for the dependencies to be built, OR shall we wait until you split upstream into blkio + libblkio (which would mean in turn that we're really doing two packages here and will need an extra review)? Let me know how you want to proceed on this one. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124697 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2124546] Review Request: duo_unix - Duo two-factor authentication for UNIX systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124546 Mark Bishop changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mbis...@duosecurity.com --- Comment #22 from Mark Bishop --- Removing `pam_duo` from the `duo_unix` package is a divergence from the original Duo package. Since both packages are named `duo_unix` and EPEL packages have a higher priority than third-party repositories, this `duo_unix` will override one from Duo causing unexpected behavior and possibly a system lockout if a user is protecting logins with `pam_duo`. Suggested solutions are: Include `pam_duo` as a part of this package. Rename this package to `login_duo` to avoid conflicting with the upstream package repository -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124546 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2133872] Review Request: python-mistune08 - Markdown parser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-687f046b74 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-687f046b74 -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2133872] Review Request: python-mistune08 - Markdown parser for Python
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-7da468cb03 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-7da468cb03 -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133872 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2124697] Review Request: libblkio - Block device I/O library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124697 Stefan Hajnoczi changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(stefanha@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #18 from Stefan Hajnoczi --- (In reply to Richard W.M. Jones from comment #16) > Just a couple more clarifications needed: > > - Should cargo-c be used? Apparently (I have not checked) it supports > creating .so symlinks and handling .pc files. libblkio currently uses meson for the library installation and pkg-config file. It does not create .so symlinks. I'm open to changing the build, if necessary. What would you recommend? > - Will libblkio & blkio live in the same upstream repository or be > split out upstream? I think this may have implications for how we > package in Fedora, although TBH either should be workable. For the time being they live in the same git repo but blkio is published on crates.io while libblkio is not (it's a C library, not a Rust crate). -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124697 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2124361] Review Request: rust-servo_arc - Fork of std::sync::Arc with some extra functionality and without weak references
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124361 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-servo_arc -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124361 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2056210] Review Request: perl-Lua-API - Interface to Lua's embedding API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056210 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Lua-API -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056210 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 1991164] Review Request: rust-libsodium-sys - FFI binding to libsodium
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1991164 --- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rust-libsodium-sys -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1991164 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2120661] Review Request: dnf5 - package management library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120661 --- Comment #19 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dnf5 -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120661 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2130607] Review Request: Atomes - An atomistic tool box
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130607 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130607 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2132956] Review Request: vagrant-scp - Copy files to a Vagrant VM via SCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2132956 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2132956 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2131496] Review Request: golang-github-sahilm-fuzzy - Go library that provides fuzzy string matching
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2131496 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2131496 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2073765] Review Request: arch-test - Tools to detect architectures runnable by your machine+kernel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2073765 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-ffa3f360f0 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2073765 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2133665] Review Request: python-syslog-rfc5424-formatter - Logging formatter which produces well-formatted RFC5424 Syslog Protocol messages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133665
Miroslav Suchý changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Miroslav Suchý ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "ISC License", "*No copyright* ISC
License". 8 files have unknown license.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 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
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to
[Bug 2120106] Review Request: tacacs - Daemon to run AAA via TACACS+ Protocol via IPv4 and IPv6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ac026d016e 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-2022-ac026d016e 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2120106] Review Request: tacacs - Daemon to run AAA via TACACS+ Protocol via IPv4 and IPv6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2022-12d69ce5ea has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-12d69ce5ea 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2130607] Review Request: Atomes - An atomistic tool box
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130607 Sébastien Le Roux changed: What|Removed |Added Comment|0 |updated --- Comment #0 has been edited --- Dear all, my name is Sébastien Le Roux and I am computational material scientist. I write this message to request a review for my first package, Atomes, and therefore I need a sponsor. Atomes is a Free (Open Source) cross-platform toolbox developed to analyze, to visualize and to create/edit three-dimensional atomistic models. More about Atomes here: https://atomes.ipcms.fr/ [EDIT] To correct the use of RPM fusion lib in the source rpm: Spec URL: https://github.com/Slookeur/Atomes-rpm-build/raw/main/Fedora/atomes.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/Slookeur/Atomes-rpm-build/raw/main/Fedora/atomes-1.1.6-1.src.rpm [/EDIT] I also prepared a copr repository here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/slook/Atomes/ With successful builds for fedora 36 and 37. Description: Atomes: a toolbox to analyze, to visualize and to edit/create three-dimensional atomistic models. It offers a workspace that allows to have many projects opened simultaneously. The different projects in the workspace can exchange data: analysis results, atomic coordinates ... Atomes also provides an advanced input preparation system for further calculations using well known molecular dynamics codes: Classical MD : DLPOLY and LAMMPS ab-initio MD : CPMD and CP2K QM-MM MD : CPMD and CP2K To prepare the input files for these calculations is likely to be the key, and most complicated step towards MD simulations. Atomes offers a user-friendly assistant to help and guide the scientist step by step to achieve this crucial step. Fedora Account System Username: slook I am extremely motivated and willing to work to packaged and maintain Atomes for the Fedora community. I have been using Fedora since FC2. Best regards. Sébastien Le Roux -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130607 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2073765] Review Request: arch-test - Tools to detect architectures runnable by your machine+kernel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2073765 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-eb67dbc863 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2073765 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2120106] Review Request: tacacs - Daemon to run AAA via TACACS+ Protocol via IPv4 and IPv6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-6c2334830b has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-6c2334830b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6c2334830b 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2080368] Review Request: kcat - Generic command line non-JVM Apache Kafka producer and consumer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2080368 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-3ccf08adf0 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-3ccf08adf0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-3ccf08adf0 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2080368 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2122395] Review Request: roc-toolkit - Real-time audio streaming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122395 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-c745012d97 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-c745012d97 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-c745012d97 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122395 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2122395] Review Request: roc-toolkit - Real-time audio streaming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122395 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-1c2699d326 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-1c2699d326 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-1c2699d326 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122395 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2056006] Review Request: golang-github-bradenhilton-mozillainstallhash - Generate differentiating hash between Mozilla software installs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056006 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-697935ee78 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-697935ee78 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-697935ee78 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056006 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2133665] Review Request: python-syslog-rfc5424-formatter - Logging formatter which produces well-formatted RFC5424 Syslog Protocol messages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133665 --- Comment #3 from Laura Barcziová --- I added the line to %files. Regarding the %check, I added the import check since the tests require some packages which are not in Fedora. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lbarczio/fedora-packaging/fedora-37-x86_64/04904897-python-syslog-rfc5424-formatter/python-syslog-rfc5424-formatter.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lbarczio/fedora-packaging/srpm-builds/04904897/python-syslog-rfc5424-formatter-1.2.3-1.fc35.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2133665 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 1822847] Review Request: vl-gothic-fonts - Japanese TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847 Benson Muite changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(ta...@redhat.com) --- Comment #20 from Benson Muite --- Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122022 would be appreciated if time allows. -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2051643] Review Request: lite-xl - A lightweight, simple, fast, feature-filled, and extremely extensible text editor written in C, and Lua, adapted from lite.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051643 --- Comment #8 from Alessio --- New spec and srpm Spec URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/lite-xl/lite-xl.spec SRPM URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/lite-xl/lite-xl-2.1.0-1.fc37.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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051643 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2051643] Review Request: lite-xl - A lightweight, simple, fast, feature-filled, and extremely extensible text editor written in C, and Lua, adapted from lite.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051643 --- Comment #7 from Alessio --- I noticed that 2.1.0 was failing to build for s390x and ppc64le architectures, probably due to this commit https://github.com/lite-xl/lite-xl/commit/630ab0ab92f2ad0a29c301635ff24c384e749105 where s390x and ppc64le are not mentioned https://github.com/lite-xl/lite-xl/blob/0fc793d1ae40ee1883aa6d8cac8659f48ee40e55/src/main.c#L85 So I added a patch file. I will contact upstream. -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051643 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2124361] Review Request: rust-servo_arc - Fork of std::sync::Arc with some extra functionality and without weak references
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124361 --- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember --- Thanks, Fabio! -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124361 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2130607] Review Request: Atomes - An atomistic tool box
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130607 Alexander Ploumistos changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|alex.ploumis...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #9 from Alexander Ploumistos --- I'm taking the review, I will work on it asap. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130607 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2091002] Review Request: python-hashids - Hashids generate short unique ids from integers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091002
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|domi...@greysector.net
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Package APPROVED.
One small nitpick:
Please use a nicer Source URL, i.e. change
Source0:
https://github.com/davidaurelio/hashids-python/archive/refs/tags/v%{version}.tar.gz
to:
Source0:
https://github.com/davidaurelio/hashids-python/archive/v%{version}/hashids-python-%{version}.tar.gz
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[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* MIT
License". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/python-
hashids/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]:
[Bug 2051643] Review Request: lite-xl - A lightweight, simple, fast, feature-filled, and extremely extensible text editor written in C, and Lua, adapted from lite.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051643
--- Comment #6 from Alessio ---
(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #4)
> but we should probably claim ownership of the whole directory
> %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor
Ok.
> The fedora-review tool finds also these two licenses. Should we
> include them in the License field?
Done.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051643
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2051643] Review Request: lite-xl - A lightweight, simple, fast, feature-filled, and extremely extensible text editor written in C, and Lua, adapted from lite.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051643 --- Comment #5 from Alessio --- Doing a scratch(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #3) > Thank you for the update, > > There is a md5sum mismatch of the sources tarball I don't know what happened. Now it should be ok. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051643 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2056006] Review Request: golang-github-bradenhilton-mozillainstallhash - Generate differentiating hash between Mozilla software installs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056006 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-108d2998f3 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-108d2998f3 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-108d2998f3 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056006 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2130696] Review Request: php-kissifrot-php-ixr - XML-RPC library for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130696 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-71439731b0 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-71439731b0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-71439731b0 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2130696 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2120106] Review Request: tacacs - Daemon to run AAA via TACACS+ Protocol via IPv4 and IPv6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-fcc7899bfb has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-fcc7899bfb \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-fcc7899bfb 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120106 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2127628] Review Request: php-splitbrain-php-cli - PHP library for building command-line tools
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127628 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-71439731b0 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-71439731b0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-71439731b0 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127628 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2127627] Review Request: php-splitbrain-php-archive - pure-PHP handling of zip and tar archives
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127627 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-71439731b0 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-71439731b0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-71439731b0 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127627 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2127629] Review Request: php-splitbrain-slika - image handling library for PHP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127629 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2022-71439731b0 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-71439731b0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-71439731b0 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127629 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 1822847] Review Request: vl-gothic-fonts - Japanese TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847 Akira TAGOH changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Status|POST|CLOSED Last Closed||2022-10-12 08:30:12 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2134021] New: Review Request: mingw-pyproject-rpm-macros - RPM macros for PEP 517 MinGW Python packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134021 Bug ID: 2134021 Summary: Review Request: mingw-pyproject-rpm-macros - RPM macros for PEP 517 MinGW Python packages Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-pyproject-rpm-macros.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-pyproject-rpm-macros-1-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: RPM macros for PEP 517 MinGW Python packages Fedora Account System Username: smani -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134021 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2134020] New: Review Request: mingw-python-wheel - MinGW Windows Python wheel library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134020 Bug ID: 2134020 Summary: Review Request: mingw-python-wheel - MinGW Windows Python wheel library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-wheel.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-wheel-0.37.1-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows Python wheel library Fedora Account System Username: smani -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134020 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[Bug 2134019] New: Review Request: mingw-python-pip - MinGW Windows Python pip library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134019 Bug ID: 2134019 Summary: Review Request: mingw-python-pip - MinGW Windows Python pip library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: manisan...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-pip.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-python-pip-22.2.2-2.fc38.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows Python pip library Fedora Account System Username: smani -- 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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2134019 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
