[Bug 1339227] Review Request: fileobj - Hex Editor written in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339227

Mattia Verga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
   Assignee|zebo...@gmail.com   |nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Flags|fedora-review+  |needinfo?(kusumi.tomohiro@g
   ||mail.com)



--- Comment #12 from Mattia Verga  ---
Review stalled


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1339227] Review Request: fileobj - Hex Editor written in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339227

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review+



--- Comment #11 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
LGTM, package approved. You still need to find a sponsor:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1339227] Review Request: fileobj - Hex Editor written in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339227



--- Comment #10 from kusumi.tomoh...@gmail.com ---
Thanks for your comments.

Updated spec file and SRPM are available at below.
https://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~tkusumi/rpms/fedora31_v2/


>  - Not needed, if thebuild is not set as noarch then it is arched by default:
> 
> # fileobj contains C extension
> BuildArch:  x86_64

Removed BuildArch.

> 
> 
>  - Glob the man page extension as the compression may change in the future:
> 
> %{_mandir}/man1/%{srcname}.1.*

Glob'd the man page.

> 
>  - Source is 404:
> 
> Source0:%{pypi_source}
> 
> You don't seem to have published it on Pypi: 
> https://pypi.org/search/?q=fileobj
> 
> Use Github then:
> 
> Source0:%url/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

Changed it to a GitHub URL.

> 
>  - Since it is a binary package, I think you should just name it fileobj and 
> not provide a python3 subpackage.
> 
> Name:   fileobj
> 
> […]
> 
> %files
> %license COPYING
> %doc CHANGES CONTRIBUTORS PKG-INFO README.md RELEASES
> %{python3_sitearch}/%{srcname}-*.egg-info
> %{python3_sitearch}/%{srcname}/
> %{_bindir}/%{srcname}
> %{_mandir}/man1/%{srcname}.1.*

Changed it to "fileobj" package.

Also removed %python_provide macro part for python3- package based on what's
mentioned in below.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_provides

> 
>  - You need to BR gcc as well:
> 
> BuildRequires:  python3-devel
> BuildRequires:  gcc

Added gcc.

> 
>  - PKG-INFO is not found, don't include it
> 
> RPM build errors:
> File not found: 
> /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fileobj-0.7.94-1.fc32.x86_64/usr/share/doc/fileobj/PKG-INFO

Removed PKG-INFO.

Looks like a tarball from GitHub doesn't contain PKG-INFO, while sdist'd
tarball from upstream source does contain PKG-INFO, and my SRPM previously
contained sdist'd tarball.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1339227] Review Request: fileobj - Hex Editor written in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339227



--- Comment #9 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
 - Not needed, if thebuild is not set as noarch then it is arched by default:

# fileobj contains C extension
BuildArch:  x86_64


 - Glob the man page extension as the compression may change in the future:

%{_mandir}/man1/%{srcname}.1.*

 - Source is 404:

Source0:%{pypi_source}

You don't seem to have published it on Pypi: https://pypi.org/search/?q=fileobj

Use Github then:

Source0:%url/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

 - Since it is a binary package, I think you should just name it fileobj and
not provide a python3 subpackage.

Name:   fileobj

[…]

%files
%license COPYING
%doc CHANGES CONTRIBUTORS PKG-INFO README.md RELEASES
%{python3_sitearch}/%{srcname}-*.egg-info
%{python3_sitearch}/%{srcname}/
%{_bindir}/%{srcname}
%{_mandir}/man1/%{srcname}.1.*

 - You need to BR gcc as well:

BuildRequires:  python3-devel
BuildRequires:  gcc

 - PKG-INFO is not found, don't include it

RPM build errors:
File not found:
/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fileobj-0.7.94-1.fc32.x86_64/usr/share/doc/fileobj/PKG-INFO


Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[!]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
 BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License". 14
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/fileobj/review-fileobj/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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]: 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 

[Bug 1339227] Review Request: fileobj - Hex Editor written in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339227

kusumi.tomoh...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(kusumi.tomohiro@g |
   |mail.com)   |



--- Comment #8 from kusumi.tomoh...@gmail.com ---
Hi

I've updated spec file and SRPM for Fedora 31 based on
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/creating-rpm-packages/
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/

Since now that both upstream and Fedora dropped Python 2.7 support, a spec file
seems quite straight forward.
I've referenced some spec files from the existing python3- packages, but
basically based on python-example.spec in above guidelines.

Files are located at below.
https://www.dragonflybsd.org/~tkusumi/rpms/fedora31/fileobj.spec
https://www.dragonflybsd.org/~tkusumi/rpms/fedora31/python-fileobj-0.7.94-1.fc31.src.rpm

Description:
Ncurses based hex editor with vi interface.
This software is written in Python and supports Python 3.2 or above.

Upstream:
https://github.com/kusumi/fileobj

Fedora Account System Username: tkusumi

Assuming the way it requires sponsor hasn't changed, I need a sponsor.
==

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1339227] Review Request: fileobj - Hex Editor written in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339227

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zebo...@gmail.com



--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
(In reply to kusumi.tomohiro from comment #5)
> Hi
> I'm going to rebase and resubmit the package.
> I would ultimately like to be a Fedora packager of this software whose
> upstream is myself.
> 
> Btw, do I still need to support both Python 2 (2.7) and 3 ?
> 
> Thanks.

Python 2 is deprecated we do not support it anymore in Fedora Rawhide.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1339227] Review Request: fileobj - Hex Editor written in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339227



--- Comment #6 from kusumi.tomoh...@gmail.com ---
Supported Python versions and upstream URL have changed over the years, so here
is the updated description.

---
Description:
Ncurses based hex editor with vi interface.
This software is written in Python and supports Python 2.7 or 3.2+ (single
source for Python 2 and 3 with same functionality).

Upstream:
https://github.com/kusumi/fileobj
which is my (Tomohiro Kusumi) GitHub account.

Fedora Account System Username: tkusumi

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1339227] Review Request: fileobj - Hex Editor written in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339227



--- Comment #5 from kusumi.tomoh...@gmail.com ---
Hi
I'm going to rebase and resubmit the package.
I would ultimately like to be a Fedora packager of this software whose upstream
is myself.

Btw, do I still need to support both Python 2 (2.7) and 3 ?

Thanks.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1339227] Review Request: fileobj - Hex Editor written in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339227



--- Comment #4 from William Moreno  ---
Hello, if you dont answer i will close this ticket as DEADREVIEW.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1339227] Review Request: fileobj - Hex Editor written in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339227

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||kusumi.tomoh...@gmail.com
  Flags||needinfo?(kusumi.tomohiro@g
   ||mail.com)



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1339227] Review Request: fileobj - Hex Editor written in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339227

William Moreno  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||williamjmore...@gmail.com



--- Comment #3 from William Moreno  ---
Hello I can take care of this review if you still want to become a Fedora
packager.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1339227] Review Request: fileobj - Hex Editor written in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339227

Yatin Karel  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||yka...@redhat.com



--- Comment #2 from Yatin Karel  ---
This is an un-official review.

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
===
- 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.
  Note: License file license.cpython-35.opt-1.pyc is not marked as %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- Package is not named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
  Check for naming python packages:
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging:NamingGuidelines
- Provides is missing
  check:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#The_.25python_provide_macro
  Must: If you build for a single python runtime you must add %python_provide
  python-$module so that the current default python is provided from the
unversioned python package.
- Package runs this command in %install section
  rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- Following code looks unnecessary to me as "with python3" or "without python3
is not used in spec:-
  %if 0%{?fedora}
  %bcond_without python3
  %else
  %bcond_with python3
  %endif
- It would be good to Split buildrequires in seperate lines


= 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: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD
 (unspecified)". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/ykarel/work/fedora-
 reviews/1339227-fileobj/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).
[!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
Check for naming python packages:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Naming?rd=Packaging:NamingGuidelines
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: 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 51200 bytes in 4 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
Package runs this command
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any 

[Bug 1339227] Review Request: fileobj - Hex Editor written in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339227

VincentS  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||vinc...@casperlefantom.net



--- Comment #1 from VincentS  ---
Hello,
I'm not yet a packager, so this is an unofficial review.


Package Review
==

REVIEW:

+ OK
- NA 
X ISSUE

+ Package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ Spec file matches base package name.
+ Spec has consistant macro usage.
+ Meets Packaging Guidelines.
+ License
+ License field in spec matches
+ License file included in package
+ Spec in American English
+ Spec is legible.
X Sources match upstream sha256sum:
$ sha256sum ~/fileobj-0.7.34.tar.gz ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/fileobj-0.7.34.tar.gz 
6ff88b1eb6fc7dc448723951d51f21f8a52bd0a21a977bc8e1ddfa737c8b2a91 
~/fileobj-0.7.34.tar.gz
91818f82eb278c27412225c09ad7732c1962589f11652b19c781fbb5f95065e6 
~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/fileobj-0.7.34.tar.gz
^^
I think you may update to the last version: v0.7.46

- Package needs ExcludeArch
+ BuildRequires correct
- Spec handles locales/find_lang
- Package is relocatable and has a reason to be.
+ Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
+ Package is code or permissible content.
+ Doc subpackage needed/used.
+ Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.


- Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage.
- Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun
- .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig
- .so files in -devel subpackage.
- -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- .la files are removed.

- Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file

+ Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
+ Package has no duplicate files in %files.
+ Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
+ Package owns all the directories it creates.
+ Rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint fedora_review/fileobj/fileobj.spec
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/fileobj-0.7.34-1.fc27.src.rpm
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/fileobj-0.7.34-1.fc27.noarch.rpm 
fedora_review/fileobj/fileobj.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/fileobj/fileobj-0.7.34.tar.gz HTTP
Error 404: Not Found
fileobj.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/fileobj/fileobj-0.7.34.tar.gz HTTP
Error 404: Not Found
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
^^
Sources aren't available on its link. I think you may use the GitHub release
link.

+ final provides and requires are sane.


SHOULD Items:

+ Should build in mock.
+ Should build on all supported archs
- Should function as described.
- Should have sane scriptlets.
- Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend.
+ Should have dist tag
- Should package latest version
- check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews)

Issues:

1. Sources doesn't match with upstream.
2. I think you should update to the last version available.
3. It will be better if you find another sources link.

You should verify your sources and rebuild the package with upstream sources.

If you would like to be sponsored, I advise you to do informal review on other
review requests, you need to show you're interested in packaging and you know
packaging and reviewing guidelines.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1339227] Review Request: fileobj - Hex Editor written in Python

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1339227

Igor Gnatenko  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ignate...@redhat.com
 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org